Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

National Curriculum

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I frequently receive correspondence from school governing bodies, teachers, parents and others which expresses substantial support for the national curriculum.

Mr. Buckley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the national curriculum is becoming centrally prescribed? Does he accept Her Majesty's inspectorate's report that a deterioration in quality and deskilling of teachers may be a consequence of the national curriculum?

Mr. MacGregor: The recent Her Majesty's inspectorate report on the national curriculum shows that good progress is being made in primary schools and I do not accept that it is centrally prescriptive. It is important to have a national curriculum which raises standards to the ughout the country, and we have

made many efforts to ensure that teachers have plenty of freedom to exercise their professional judgment—the theme of a speech that I made at a recent conference held by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. It is well recognised that we are getting the balance right.

Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend advise us what is happening with regard to the history working group's report and when we shall hear his decision on that?

Mr. MacGregor: I am consulting more widely because the report attracted wide interest from many different points of view and it is important that those who offer advice on the report should do so only after they have read it. That consultation ends in the middle of June and I shall make an announcement then.

Mr. Straw: In view of the Prime Minister's almost complete U-turn which was announced in the Sunday Telegraph on 15 April, and the Secretary of State's different but almost weekly changes to the national curriculum's operation, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an unacceptable confusion about the practice of the national curriculum, which cannot be resolved by a public relations man imposed upon him by his predecessor, the chairman of the Tory party? In view of that serious confusion and the fact that in the interview reported in the Sunday Telegraph the Prime Minister raised doubts even about the idea of a core curriculum, is it not time that the Secretary of State produced a White Paper setting out exactly the Government's policy?

Mr. MacGregor: That was a ragbag of holiday straws. The position is clear. As I go round the country, I find that teachers welcome the orderly decisions that I am taking to implement the national curriculum. There is no disagreement on the purposes and objectives of the national curriculum. It was made clear in the original White Paper and the consultative document, which I have reread, that the non-core subjects would have less rigorous standard assessment tasks than the other subjects, and that a variety of decisions had to be taken to implement the national curriculum and will continue to have to be taken. I am taking those decisions in an ordered and manageable


way. I have been particularly concerned not to overburden school curricula or teachers with too much at once. There is considerable support for our recent announcements, all of which are available to teachers, and it simply is not necessary to have a White Paper.

Training Credits

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect he expects the introduction of training credits to have on young people seeking further education and training after they leave school.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): By motivating young people to seek training and employers to provide it, training credits have the potential to increase radically the number of young people in jobs who receive worthwhile education and training. That is why the Government have announced their intention to run pilot schemes from next April.

Mr. Stevens: I welcome job training credits which will introduce additional flexibility to bring about specific training in the skills that individuals will need, but what role will the education service have in that new scheme?

Mr. Jackson: I believe that the education service will have an important role to play in the new scheme, which will present a considerable opportunity for the service to expand its provision of part-time education and training of young people. It will continue to be the major provider of part-time training and education and to play an essential role in the operation of the credit scheme. In considering applications for pilot schemes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be careful to identify the local education authorities that have been most closely involved. We have received no fewer than 33 bids for the 10 pilot schemes that we shall be operating, which shows the extent of their popularity.

Mr. Leighton: The principle of training credits has been widely welcomed, but some youngsters should also be encouraged to undergo further education, including that for vocational careers. As one does not want students to make educational decisions mainly on financial grounds, is there not an equally strong case for offering a financial incentive to remain at school, by making training credits available to young people who decide to continue into further education?

Mr. Jackson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the remarks that he made in response to the original statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when the hon. Gentleman was a very welcome voice from the Opposition Benches. The implications of the part-time training credit scheme for those in full-time education will have to be examined. However, we have no reason to believe that the scheme will constitute a disincentive to remain at school or to enter a further education college full time. However, we shall monitor that aspect in the context of the pilot schemes.

Mr. Worthington: If the Minister believes that pupils will be motivated by the introduction of training credits, does he also believe that they will be demotivated by the

withdrawal of funds by the Department of Employment from compacts and training and vocational employment initiatives that will shortly be announced? Does the Minister agree that students will be put off entering further education and training by the renegotiation of the youth training scheme and the cutting of Department of Employment money from that area?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should address those questions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The training credit pilot schemes involve expenditure of an extra £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million in 1992–93, which is a considerable investment. If the schemes are shown to have worked, I hope that we shall see further growth under that heading.

Cedar Special School

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to launch a four-year research project into the inter-disciplinary team approach used at the Cedar special school for the handicapped near Southampton.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have no plans to launch such a project.

Mr. Colvin: The House will be aware of the wonderful work done by the Peto institute in Hungary in the treatment of handicapped children. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Government see fit to spend £5 million annually on the Peto institute when a more cost-effective alternative method than conductive education, namely the inter-disciplinary team approach, awaits evaluation at the Cedar special school near my constituency, at a cost of only about £250,000? Does my hon. Friend agree that financing that scheme would be a good use of the taxpayers' money, as it would identify whether IDTA or conductive education is the best way forward in the treatment of handicapped children?

Mr. Howarth: We believe that conductive education should be among the options available to British children. It is at an early stage of development in this country. We are planning to contribute £5 million over the next four years to support the international Peto institute, for the purpose of ensuring that places will be available for British children and that British conductors can be trained in Hungary and bring their expertise back to this country. We are undertaking a comparative study of the kind that my hon. Friend commends to me, the results of which will throw light on the benefits of conductive education as developed at the Birmingham institute and the multi-disciplinary approach being used with a different group of children in another part of the country.

Grant-Maintained Status

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have so far shown interest in obtaining grant-maintained status.

Mr. MacGregor: Ballots about grant-maintained status have been held at 88 schools. Parents at 66 of them have


voted in favour of proceeding with an application. I have approved 37 of the 48 proposals which have reached me for decision.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not all parents, pupils and teachers are satisfied with the arrangements for the reorganisation of sixth forms in the constituency that I represent and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the principle of schools trying to seek grant-maintained status? Will he join me in condemning as utterly irresponsible any local education authority trying to rubbish a ballot of parents, as is happening in a school in Basildon at the moment?

Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I am a strong supporter of the grant-maintained policy. I believe that it has many advantages, which I frequently talk about, and I am absolutely clear about that. It has the advantage of quick decision taking, the school and the governing body have complete control over their affairs, it has greatly improved morale in schools and, perhaps most important of all, it is popular with parents, as is shown by the large increase in the numbers of pupils going to such schools. It would not be right for me to intervene when a particular ballot is taking place, as the issue may come to me later for a decision.

Mr. Dunn: rose——

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—The right hon. Gentleman only kept the education job because the Prime Minister did not know where his hon. Friend, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) was when she wanted him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been called because I saw him.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman was off on holiday on an obscure island.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, instead of using the money in the way that he has just described, he would do well to send some money to Derbyshire for nursery school provision especially at Langwith in my constituency?

Mr. MacGregor: I do hot know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about, and this is not the first time. There is no extra money for grant-maintained schools. The advantage of the grant-maintained school is its ability to run itself without constant referral back. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is confusing grant-maintained schools with city technology colleges and, not for the first time, he has not made his point.

Mr. Dunn: Can the Secretary of State confirm that if the Opposition had their way the grant-maintained provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 would be abolished, as would grammar schools, church schools, sixth forms in schools, sixth form colleges and the independent sector? Under the Opposition's proposals we would be required to have a comprehensive system for 11 to 16-year-olds with tertiary colleges. That is against the majority of opinion in this country.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From all the Opposition have been saying, it is clear that they have learnt nothing and that they have stuck by the policies of the 1960s. My hon. Friend is right to say that

a number of the reforms that we are carrying out—I refer to the grant-maintained school reform—are very popular with parents, and I hope that the Opposition will think again about their opposition to those general policies.

Education Provision, Bradford

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had concerning education provision in the Bradford education authority area.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend frequently receives such representations, on a variety of issues.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister accept that one of the main reasons for the sinking of the Tory flagship in Bradford last week was the crisis in the city's education service, which arises directly from the £276 poll tax set by the Conservative party? Does she understand that more than 100 teachers are facing redundancy as a result of underfunding of the school budgets, that schools are crumbling in Bradford because we have received only a fraction of the £100 million needed to repair and renovate them, and that 50 lecturers are facing redundancy at Bradford and Ilkley college because of deep cuts in their funding? In view of all that, will the Minister arrange for an urgent early meeting with the new Bradford education authority so that the crisis in the city's education service can be resolved?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. Ministers are always happy to meet hon. Members with deputations to discuss education matters. But the hon. Gentleman must hurry before the normal practice in Bradford occurs—the Conservatives retaking control.

Teachers (Industrial Action)

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the introduction of the national curriculum of the recent decision by some of the teachers' unions to take strike action.

Mr. MacGregor: I regret any industrial action in our schools. It can only damage children's education, serves no useful purpose and diminishes teachers' standing in the eyes of parents and of the public as a whole. For those reasons many teachers regard such action as undesirable and unacceptable.

Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the calls for strike action within some teachers' unions are being led by members of Militant and the hard left—a notable example is Miss Anita Dickson, a self-declared supporter of Militant who has been elected to the NUT executive? Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is appropriate for such people to be teaching our children in our state schools?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly think that the reactions of many parents to the comments and actions of some people in the teaching unions is that they would not wish their children to be taught by such people. The important message for us to get over is that the vast majority of teachers are not like that.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that he has refused to meet any of the local authorities that have been poll tax capped? Will he tell the House how on earth the national curriculum can be implemented in Calderdale, where the budget has to be reduced by £5 million?

Mr. MacGregor: The reason is that it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Local education authorities that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing to charge cap have had the opportunity to put forward alternative proposals which he is considering. That is the right way to proceed.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made as regards the establishment of city technology colleges.

Mr. MacGregor: The city technology colleges programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are up and running and a further nine are due to open in 1990 and 1991.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the three CTCs in operation so far have emphatically shown their ability to raise standards, particularly in vocational education, to ensure that local companies continually take an interest in their curriculum, and, possibly most important, to increase the motivation of their pupils and those in surrounding schools? Does he agree that the most obvious demonstration of their popularity is their popularity with parents, and that significant proof of that is at Kingshurst where this year there are no fewer than 730 applications for 150 places, which is a record?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who has put many of the points in favour of the CTCs. I join him in underlining the importance of parents' attitudes towards the CTCs. The applications are well up on the number of places available. In addition, the colleges are clearly attracting other sponsors. Kingshurst, which my hon. Friend mentioned, had two original industrial sponsors and now has 70. That is very good progress.

Mr. Flannery: Why does not the Minister admit that the original plan for city technology colleges has totally collapsed? Does he remember the promises that private industry would finance those colleges? The withdrawal of funds—our funds—from Brighton city technology college is the latest failure. City technology colleges mean that in Nottingham where about £9 million is needed for schools, about £6 million goes to the city technology college and all the other schools—hundreds of them—have to make do with the other £3 million.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall take just one or two of those points. It is absolutely not the case that the CTC programme is a failure—quite the reverse. I have said that 12 will be in operation before long. The programme is also attracting considerable industrial sponsorship—more than £40 million. It is new money and, therefore, apart from all its education advantages, it should be seen as part of the inner urban programme, and in that context it is very successful in raising education standards. In Brighton, the only reason I took the decision that I did was that it

became clear that the pledge of the original sponsors could not be fulfilled and we would not get a private sponsorship.

Mr. Pawsey: May I ask my right hon. Friend to disregard the rantings of the Opposition? They are full of sound and fury and signify very little. The comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) are nothing more than nit picking. Conservative Members are most anxious to see the policy and programme for city technology colleges advanced far more strongly and far more quickly.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition dislike popular schemes conceived by the Conservative party and our schemes are popular. I should also like to move faster. The difficulty sometimes is in putting together sponsors and sites, and getting through the problems of planning permission and building. Those are the main difficulties. I have already given the number of colleges that we have in the pipeline and I hope that there will be others before long.

Mr. Straw: Is not the truth of the city technology programme that financial controls have been so inadequate that Ministers and donors have been able to play fast and loose with public funds? Will the Secretary of State explain how the CTC trust was allowed to authorise a potential donor to the Brighton CTC, Mr. Ivor Revere, to become the front man in the purchase of the land for the CTC for the Catholic diocese in Brighton so that he could hoodwink the diocese into believing that the land was to be used for housing rather than for a school? How was Mr. Revere able to filch £200,000 from public funds as a secret commission on that land deal? Why did that secret commission go undetected for three months until December? Why, above all, did the Secretary of State, well knowing by 8 December the fact of that secret commission, refuse to volunteer the information to Parliament? Why did we have to wait for four months for that information to be wrung out of him?

Mr. MacGregor: A great deal is wrong in all those questions. First, the site was purchased for a CTC and that was clear. Secondly, as soon as it became clear to my Department that commission had been paid, we acted. It was discovered through a normal routine check, we acted immediately and the money was repaid immediately. I made the announcement to Parliament when I was asked, in the normal way. There has been no concealment. A whole series of financial transactions go on every day in government. The key point is that the moment we discovered that money had been paid on commission—and we did not think it should have been—we got it back.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on local management of schools.

Mrs. Rumbold: Local management of schools schemes came into force on 1 April 1990 in 87 local education authorities. My officials are working with the remaining 10 LEAs whose schemes could not be approved to produce acceptable schemes for introduction in April 1991. We shall be monitoring and reviewing all aspects of LMS in the light of experience.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern at the ease with which some education authorities can retain far too many of their resources at the centre, thereby denying proper and adequate funding to the real business of education—the schools and their staff? Is there any mechanism by which my hon. Friend can impose discipline on education authorities?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend on that question. It is true that there has been considerable variation among local education authorities about the amount that has been delegated, especially from the discretionary area. However, one of the points that I hope will please my hon. Friend is that many of those authorities have discretion to hold back for one year only. We expect, therefore, that next year, and in ensuing years, more of the discretionary element for the central administration will be delegated back to the schools, where it should be.

Mr. Crowther: Is the Minister aware that poll tax capping will cause immense problems for the implementation of the Government's own scheme for the local management of schools? If the Secretary of State understands the principle of collective responsibility in the Cabinet, how can he justify an arrangement under which the children of his constituents will receive more resources for education than the children of my constituents? Is that not a gross abuse of the power of a Cabinet Minister?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Local education authorities set their budgets on their own terms and according to their means and desires. If local education authorities have done their job properly and the schools are receiving the money under LMS, there is absolutely no reason why the schemes should not continue as planned.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that many excellent schools in my constituency are hampered by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which intensely dislikes church and village schools? Will she ensure that such councils cannot victimise church and village schools and that they can continue to do the excellent job that they are now doing at both primary and secondary level?

Mrs. Rumbold: I fully share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for small schools and Church of England and church schools generally. Under its LMS scheme, the local authority has the ability to ensure that small schools are protected. We shall be watching carefully to ensure that small schools receive the protection that is due to them, so that they may continue to do the excellent work that they have always done in the past.

Ms. Armstrong: Does not the Minister realise that there is widespread consternation about the operation of local management of schools? The scheme and the principle that we supported are being completely undermined by the centralised diktat that the formula based on average teaching costs represents. That formula is applied to no other aspect of education. When will the Government wake up to the fact that we have to pay the actual cost of teachers' salaries and not the average cost?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is a great pity that the hon. Lady does not understand the principles that underlie the local management of schools. In the first place, central

Government have done nothing other than to set the loosest possible guidelines. The central point about LMS is that it is the pupils who lead the funding. Each local education authority determines how its local management scheme works according to the number of pupils and the age weighting of those pupils.
If we paid historic costs, which is what the hon. Lady would like us to do, we should simply build into the system the failures of the past rather than moving forward to the future, so that parents—voting with their feet and their children—get the best schools, which they deserve.

Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend's monitoring of the local management of schools so far revealed many schools for which the variation between last year's and this year's budget is wider than it should be? Is she satisfied that sufficient flexibility is built into the system to ensure that some of the worst gaps can be closed?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am satisfied that some of the worst gaps can be closed by our monitoring of LMS schemes introduced in some authorities. Some authorities made some mistakes in their initial calculations, which have had to be changed, but there is a transitional period during which adjustments can be made. Moreover, minor or major variations can be made with the consent of the Secretary of State. There are adequate safeguards for the future.

International Baccalaureate

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the provision of the international baccalaureate examination; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Two schools have made representations about offering the international baccalaureate.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the criticisms made of A-levels is that although they offer good depth, they lack breadth. The international baccalaureate, while providing the same academic standards, provides students with a broader curriculum at 18. Will my hon. Friend consider whether the Government should encourage the adoption of the international baccalaureate, especially as we move towards 1992?

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I acknowledge that the international baccalaureate is set to very high academic standards. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, alongside A-levels, we have now introduced AS-levels, which are intended to do the job of introducing breadth into A-level studies.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, the American community school, on whose board of academic governors I serve, offers the international baccalaureate, and that many British people are now asking whether their children can be admitted to take it because of the international access that it gives them? Will my hon. Friend encourage other British schools to consider the matter seriously.?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that it is always open to schools to look closely at this matter.
Fourteen schools in this country already offer the international baccalaureate. Some are maintained schools and others are independent.

Local Management of Schools

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to introduce flexibility for schemes for the local management of schools.

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government's framework for local management of schools gave LEAs ample flexibility to design schemes which reflected local needs and priorities. There are, moreover, simple arrangements which allow local education authorities to make changes to their approved schemes in the light of experience.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister agree to meet spokespersons of the Cumbria education committee, which requested such a meeting because of the Secretary of State's unfair criticism of the way in which it has been dealt with LMS? Is it not a fact that the problem with LMS in Cumbria, as in the rest of the country, is not how money is distributed but a lack of money?

Mrs. Rumbold: Local education authorities set their own aggregated schools budgets. They do it exactly the same as they did before. Therefore, if there is a particular small element of the way in which a budget has been disbursed, by all means, if an authority wishes to discuss it, there is no reason why it should not do so.

Mr. Latham: Would my hon. Friend have a look at the proposed averaging across secondary schools and see how it will affect sixth form colleges? Is she aware that the Rutland sixth form college in my constituency is most concerned about the proposals? I understand that other sixth form colleges are concerned as well.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am very happy to look at any particular schemes that are being brought in and to talk to the local education authority about them. It would be appropriate to allow the scheme to run for a year and then look at the effects.

Education Expenditure, Wigan

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Wigan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend has received in the past month two representations about expenditure on education in Wigan.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate have given Wigan education a clean bill of health and that the charge capping that has been unfairly placed on Wigan could militate severely against education provision in the town? When will the Secretary of State and his Ministers take responsibility—or is it be shifted along to Marsham street?

Mr. Howarth: Wigan's original budget for 1990–91 for all services is no less than 21 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, which means an extra bill of £151 for each Wigan charge payer. The huge majority of authorities have been able to establish a satisfactory education budget

without setting such a high community charge that they run into charge capping. The hon. Gentleman might have a word with his colleagues on Wigan metropolitan district council and suggest that they do the minimum of shouting from the housetops and take advantage of the opportunity that they will shortly have to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and have a quiet talk together.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that education costs can be offset in a number of different ways? Is he aware that Wigan has listed savings of £88,000 for school cleaning costs and £22,000 a month, among other things, by withdrawing from the nuclear-free zone steering group?

Mr. Howarth: As always, my hon. Friend unerringly has his finger on the button.

Education Expenditure, Islington

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Islington; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has received in the past month one representation about expenditure on education in Islington.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that among the representations that she has received are a deep concern about the availability of public finance to maintain Islington's education service after 1992, when the transitional arrangements end, and a very deep concern by the local authority, parents and pupils of all our schools about the difficult conditions in which they must work because of the poor state of school buildings and the urgent need for central Government money to be put in to improve the quality of the working environment for teachers and pupils?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the transitional money that has been given to inner London education authorities as they take over the responsibility for education will be more than adequate to help and to ease them through the period of changeover. In the discussions that I have had with them, they are confident that the changeover will be most successful. If problems arise in future, obviously that is the time when we should look at them.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question is about Islington.

Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister agree that, if the good people of Islington had shown the same good sense—[Interruption.]—as the people of Ealing last Thursday and thrown out the Labour council in Islington in the way we threw out the Labour council in Ealing for ever, they would in future get much better education in Islington, as we shall get in Ealing?

Mrs. Rumbold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent council and on the excellent result that was


achieved on Thursday. I think it likely that, at the next local elections in London, Islington will follow the example of Ealing.

Schools (Ethnic Composition)

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if parents' rights to choose educational establishments on the grounds of ethnic composition will apply to nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: Admission to nursery education is a matter for local education authorities. In carrying out that duty, they are required to observe the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for that somewhat obscure answer. Will she explain why educational apartheid is acceptable at age five but not at ages three and four?

Mrs. Rumbold: The age for starting school as a requirement in Britain is five. Any education provided by local authorities before the age of five is a matter for them to decide.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will probably be aware of the recent case in Middlesbrough, where a lady chose to exercise her right to move her child from one school to another because the first school had high ethnic numbers, whereas the second did not. My hon. Friend might like to know that that lady has now exercised her right to move her child to another school, where the proportions are roughly 50:50.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are in favour of parents exercising their choice within the law.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the decision of the Secretary of State to allow people to transfer their children on the basis of the ethnic composition of a school is one of the most worrying developments of the last 10 years of education policy? What is the end of the road when the policy starts by saying, in effect, "If you are a white parent and your child is in a school attended by children of other colours, that in itself is a ground for transfer"? Are we not a multi-ethnic and multicultural community?

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course we are a multi-ethnic and multicultural community. The parent in that case chose, within her rights, to send her child to a school of her own choice. The local authority had no reason not to allow that choice. The choice of parents as to where their children shall be educated is of vital importance. Many parents choose schools for the education offered, not because of the composition of those attending them.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in England and Wales were offered places in the academic year 1989–90 under the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Alan Howarth: About 26,500 pupils held assisted places in England in the academic year 1989–90. The figures for Wales are a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Sumberg: Does the Minister agree that the assisted places scheme has been a great educational achievement of the Government because it has allowed pupils from modest backgrounds to attend some of our finest schools, such as Manchester grammar school and Bury grammar school? Does he further agree that it is disgraceful that some of the former grammar school boys on the Opposition Benches, some of whom attended those schools, should now seek by abolishing the scheme to deny to others what they enjoyed?

Mr. Howarth: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The assisted places scheme has enabled schools which had a tradition of providing a distinguished academic education to children from less well-off families to revive and renew that tradition. Members of the last Labour Government, many of whom had been educated at direct grant schools and grammar schools, kicked away that ladder of opportunity for the next generation of children. Now they propose to kick away the assisted places scheme. We, by constrast, are extending the scheme, and am pleased to say that a further 16 schools have today been accepted into the scheme.

Education Expenditure, Derbyshire

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no recent representations about expenditure on education in Derbyshire.

Mr. Skinner: Well, I am asking him now. Is the Minister aware that the standard spending assessment of Derbyshire was calculated on the basis of a 3·8 per cent. increase for teachers' pay, which was not sufficient and that, as a result of the threatened poll tax capping, large numbers of nursery schools in Derbyshire will not be built? I call on the Secretary of State now in this Chamber to guarantee that the expenditure for every one of those nursery schools in Derbyshire will be allowed, including the one at Langwith in my constituency.

Mr. Howarth: Derbyshire's budget for 1990–91 for all services is a hefty 25 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, an extra burden of £157 per charge payer. Other education authorities throughout the land have established satisfactory budgets for education without burdening the charge payer in the intolerable way that Derbyshire has proposed. There is no reason why Derbyshire should not similarly set its house in order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Homelessness (London)

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what further plans she has to alleviate homelessness in London.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 27 March additional allocations of £88 million to London boroughs in 1990–91 to relieve homelessness, in particular to move homeless families out of unsatisfactory bed and breakfast accommodation. The Housing Corporation has also announced details of £45 million-worth of schemes to help the homeless over a two-year period. This year, we are increasing to £2 million the support that we give to voluntary organisations who help and advise the homeless.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister accept that, 10 years ago, in 1979, there were 2,750 households in temporary accommodation in London, that the current figure is over 25,000 and that a further 2,000 people are sleeping on the streets? When her Government asked the local authorities what resources they required to deal with the homeless problem in London, they asked for at least £480 million. They were given less than one sixth of what they wanted. Does she agree that, when people sleep on the streets of our capital city, when people are charged exorbitant rents and when children are brought up in bed-in-breakfast hotels it is a disgrace to a civilised country?

The Prime Minister: I announced considerable extra expenditure to relieve homelessness. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that a considerable number of council properties are empty which, if they were brought into use more quickly, could reduce the number of homeless. For example, in Islington, there are 1,162 empty properties. If the properties were turned around much more quickly, that would make a great contribution to relieving homelessness.

Mr. Tony Banks: Four out of five are private.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that homelessness in London will be tackled more effectively following the gain by the Conservatives of Ealing council last Thursday, when a Labour majority of 20 was converted into a Tory majority of 10? Does she agree that the cause of homelessness is not served by leaving properties empty for long periods or by allowing squatters to take control of them, and that a Conservative administration is pledged to make the best possible use of the housing stock?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative administration will manage the housing stock very much more efficiently in the interests of everyone and will manage the whole of the local authority's expenditure more economically and better than the Labour authority of the past.

Engagements

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had a meeting with ministerial colleagues and others, including Chancellor Vranitzky of Austria, and received a delegation representing the Eisenhower centennial committee, led by Vice-President Quayle of the United States of America. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister now recognise that, due to the poll tax's failure to take into account ability to pay, and despite the rebate system, many people cannot afford to pay the poll tax? They could not afford to pay it even if the unrealistic and unattainable targets set by the Government had been attained. What does she propose to do to help people who cannot pay the poll tax now?

The Prime Minister: Those who have the lowest incomes get the most generous rebates—far better than, and a great improvement on, the rebates under the old rating system. We now realise that a number of people do not know that they are entitled to rebates if they did not receive them under the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, since the elections, there have been advertisements telling people that they can apply for rebates, and should do so before 27 May. I hope that they will.
As for ability to pay at the top end, only 30 per cent. in England, and 20 per cent. in Scotland, of local expenditure is met by community charge. The other is met by the taxpayer and business. With regard to income tax, people pay heavily, and the richer therefore pay heavily, towards local services.
The hon. Gentleman will recall the figure from "Social Trends"—the top 10 per cent. of income earners pay 40 per cent. income tax and those on the bottom half of incomes pay only 15 per cent. of the yield of income tax.

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stanbrook: I have been reflecting on the impressive performance of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Make it a question, please.

Mr. Stanbrook: —last week, when she defended British sovereignty against ideas of political union, but bearing in mind that a united Europe is Churchillian in conception, and chauvinistic France is able to take the lead in promoting political integration in Europe, is there a danger that my right hon. Friend's attitude to Europe might lead to a Europe united against us, which is what British statesmen have always attempted to prevent? Would not that be a bad thing for Britain?

The Prime Minister: Winston Churchill was absolutely staunch that we should all be united in defence of freedom, and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is NATO which has kept our freedom. We are a prominent member of the European Community and leading the field in bringing about the single market in Europe. Our voice


is well heard, and most of the other members take similar views to us on the question of retaining their own sovereignty and accountability to their own Parliament.

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Other Hon. Members: Ealing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us why, under her Government, the inflation rate in Britain is 40 per cent. higher than the European average?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that our top responsibility is to get down inflation. The way to do so is to increase the price of money, which is why the interest rate is 15 per cent. One reason, of which I am sure he will approve, that inflation is higher than it should be is that we were fearful of having a very bad recession after the stock exchange crash of 1987. Therefore, we got the growth going a little too fast, which is why we have to reduce and squeeze out inflation.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not the Prime Minister yet aware that the major danger of recession comes directly from her policy of maintaining the highest interest and mortgage rates anywhere in the developed world? Will not she at last acknowledge that the major single reason for inflation is her policy of high interest rates, and that she is the inflation-maker in chief? When will she start fighting inflation and getting interest rates down?

The Prime Minister: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we reduce inflation by reducing interest rates and increasing growth? At the moment, that would take inflation to the levels that we saw under his Labour Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Is that not the final confession of failure by the right hon. Lady? She has got the highest inflation and the lowest growth rate in Europe, and the only way she knows to rescue her economy is somehow to plunge us into recession. Why does not she acknowledge that failure, change policies, sponsor growth and get out of the threat of recession and inflation?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I said to him last time. If he were to pursue those policies, he would have inflation back to Labour levels of 26 per cent.

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does the Prime Minister agree that in the real business of being a good European, the rhetoric of some of our European partners does not match reality? Will she confirm that Britain is in the lead in the implementation of single market directives? Would it not behove countries such as Germany and France to clean up their act on the single market before preaching to us about airy-fairy concepts such as political and economic union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we are in the lead in implementing the directives which the European Community has agreed; it is acknowledged that we are in

the lead. We were in the lead in policies to get down the agricultural surpluses; that succeeded. We were in the lead in getting a sensible budget in Europe. We have played a formidable part, and we are very good Europeans.

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister agree with the remarks of her honourable but courageous Friend the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that the time has come for her, like Len Hutton, to take her bat and ball home, like Stan Matthews, to hang up her boots, to vacate, 10 Downing street and to retire to her large house in Dulwich? Or is she, despite the lack of confidence shown in her even by Conservative Members, determined to carry on and on and on?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member wishes me to go, it can only be because he thinks that my going would be to the advantage of the Labour party.

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Exeter the Labour-controlled council has caused great distress to many elderly and low-income people by sending out community charge bills without the proper rebate deductions? Will she take the necessary steps to ensure that the generous Government rebate scheme is properly applied by all local authorities?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker: where someone has been receiving a rebate under the old rating system, the local authority should be very well aware and should be able to take it off the community charge amount to be paid. Where a person is entitled to transitional relief, the council should also know how much that relief is and should deduct it from the total community charge.
There are a few cases in which the local authority will not know, because the rebate scheme under the community charge is more generous than it was under rates. Those people must inquire and make their own applications. Others must check that the right figures have been put in their demands. I hope that they will do so as soon as possible.
Most well-run authorities have already deducted the rebate and the transitional relief. Where that has not happened, I hope that people will apply. They will see advertisements to that effect in local newspapers, bringing it to their attention.

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunnachie: During a busy day, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the people of Kashmir who are being murdered, raped and illegally imprisoned by the Indian army? As the titular Head of the Commonwealth, would you bring all pressure to bear upon India—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dunnachie: As the Prime Minister of Great Britain, will the right hon. Lady force India to withdraw her army from Kashmir and allow the Kashmiri people the freedom for which they have fought for so long?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that the Head of the Commonwealth does not require, nor are we entitled, to give any advice in the discharge of those duties. With regard to our own responsibility, naturally we are in touch with both India and Pakistan, but we hope that this very difficult situation with regard to Kashmir will be solved peaceably and by discussion between the Ministers of the two countries.

Football Violence (Bournemouth)

Mr. David Atkinson: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the violence and destruction which took place in Bournemouth on the occasion of last Saturday's football match between AFC Bournemouth and Leeds United.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): Last Saturday a second division football match took place at Dean Court, Boscombe, between Bournemouth and Leeds United. I understand from the chief constable of Dorset, whom I have asked for a full report, that there was serious disorder in the town over the entire weekend, mainly involving Leeds supporters. To date, 104 arrests have been made and criminal damage totalling around £40,000 has been reported. Many police officers were hurt, and 12 received serious injuries.
The scenes of violent disorder witnessed in Bournemouth were absolutely disgraceful. I extend my sympathy to all those police officers who were injured and to all the law-abiding people who suffered as a consequence of the behaviour of vicious hooligans. Once again, the police had to bear the brunt of a ferocious attack, and conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism. In other towns also, they had to cope with hooligan behaviour.
Serious disorder was anticipated by the police at Bournemouth and repeated requests were made to the football authorities to reschedule the fixture, the first such request being made as long ago as last June. It is for the football authorities to explain why they did not respond positively to those requests. I have called in both the Football League and the Football Association to discuss the matter, and I will be seeing the league later today, and possibly a representative of the Football Association. It is high time that the football authorities heeded rather than ignored sensible advice.
In the past few years, new powers have been given to the courts to deal with hooliganism. The courts are certainly not without the means to deal with people who behave as so many apparently did over the weekend. Severe penalties are available for crimes of violence and additional sanctions are provided in the Public Order Act 1986 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. The chief constable of Dorset has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to raise the question of a police veto on particular fixtures where, in the police view, there is a high risk of disorder. Consideration there must be, but any new powers would take time to put in place. I think that the whole House will agree that the football authorities must be made to face up to their responsibilities right now to prevent any repetition of the deplorable scenes of this bank holiday weekend.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he accept that holding that match during the bank holiday weekend was a clear recipe for the disaster, destruction and violence that took place? The police are to be commended on avoiding any further disaster. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in the light of the irresponsible refusal to respond to several requests by Dorset police to reschedule the match, the local police authority must now have the clear and final

say on whether such matches take place? Was there not a clear case for the application of the alcohol-free zones with which the Department is currently experimenting?
When my right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of the Football League later today, will he ask them who will pay for the destruction of property and businesses in my constituency, and for the increased community charge that will result from the costs of the extra policing to deal with ticketless fans outside the ground?

Mr. Waddington: The police are certainly to be commended. They should not have to put up with this, any more than they should have to put up with what happened in Trafalgar square. I find it hard to understand why the Football League did not heed the advice of the chief constable. I shall say to representatives of the Football League that it is high time they worked out a sensible arrangement with the chief constables and heeded their advice. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has said about the experimental byelaws. The reports that I have received so far suggest that the experimental byelaws have been popular with the people living in those towns where the experiments are taking place. I shall report to the House later on the results of the various experiments.
As for the damage that has been done, the law provides that the county council or the police authority must pay for any damage if the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 applies. The question is whether there was a riot within the meaning of the Public Order Act 1986 at the time when the damage was done.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The serious disorder in Bournemouth is to the shame of all of us in the city of Leeds, and there are no possible excuses for it. Would the Home Secretary consider publishing in the city of Leeds the names of the 104 people charged or sentenced? If he does so, it will be found that many of those people are not from Leeds, but come from a much wider area. Of course the Football League made a big mistake, but the matter goes deeper than that. I do not know the answer, but I hope that we will not pussyfoot about. What happened in Bournemouth is to our eternal disgrace, and something should be done. It is not just a question of the football authorities banning matches; there is something fundamentally wrong that we should all consider.

Mr. Waddington: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that a serious mistake was made by the Football League. There can be no excuse for hooligan behaviour of that kind. I have not the slightest doubt that the local Bournemouth press will not hesitate for a moment to publish the names of all concerned, and I am sure that in due course those names will be publicised loudly in Leeds: so they should be.

Mr. John Butterfill: On behalf of my constituents in Bournemouth, West, may I associate myself with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)?
What powers presently exist under the law to prevent a match from taking place if it is expected that this type of disturbance will occur? Will my right hon. and learned


Friend join me in calling on the local magistracy to impose the most severe penalties available to them on the convicted hooligans, to act as a future deterrent?

Mr. Waddington: It is up to the courts to decide on the appropriate penalty in a particular case; my hon. Friend would not expect me to say more now than that the court has adequate powers to deal severely with people who indulge in this sort of behaviour. The Public Order Act gives chief constables power to impose conditions on an assembly as to the number of people who can attend and the time at which it can take place, but there is no power in law to ban an assembly. That power was considered by the House during the passage of the Public Order Bill and it was not thought necessary.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Does the Home Secretary accept that many genuine football supporters on both sides of the House share his disgust at what was done at Bournemouth on Saturday by mindless idiots who are no friends of soccer, against whom I hope that the courts will take action? Bearing in mind that this has been our best season on the hooligan front for many a season past and that during the weekend there were hooligan acts in five European countries, all of which will be participating in the European competition, will the Home Secretary resist a knee-jerk reaction?
Can the Home Secretary confirm press reports that many travelled from Leeds with tee shirts bearing the words "Invasion Bournemouth 90" and with forged tickets? If so, what action is he taking to locate the manufacturers of those tickets and shirts, and will he take action under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Public Order Act 1986?

Mr. Waddington: I doubt whether it would be proper to take powers of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the latter part of his question, but I am grateful to him for his expression of disgust. All right-minded people should be disgusted at what happened.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he talks about a knee-jerk reaction, because that gives the impression that all has gone reasonably well during the past season and that there is nothing much to worry about. The fact remains that there was disorder in a number of places during the bank holiday weekend, which caused a great deal of trouble to the police, led to police injuries and spoiled the holidays for many people. It is time that the Football League addressed itself to its responsibilities in these matters. It is as simple as that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The background noise is intolerable. The Home Secretary is answering a serious question.

Mr. Waddington: The fixture would never have taken place, and the trouble would never have arisen, if the Football League had heeded the advice given by the chief constable as long ago as last June and repeated twice last month.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite three requests to postpone or defer the match based on hard evidence from west Yorkshire, no action was taken by the football

authorities? In the light of that, and because of the need for positive action, will he give serious consideration to the chief constable's request for new police powers to ban a match in such circumstances? Will he also consider making it a criminal offence to attempt to enter an all-ticket match without a ticket?

Mr. Waddington: I am not sure that that last suggestion has a great deal of bearing on the incident, but I am awaiting a full report on the matter. The chief constable of Dorset has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to consider whether it should ask the Home Office for new powers. We must make the Football League address itself to its responsibilities now. Even if one were to decide that new legislation was necessary, it would take some time to get it on the statute book. The question still remains, why does not a responsible Football League heed the advice that it is given by people who know about the situation? Why did not the Football League heed what the chief constable of Dorset had to say? Any sensible body of men would have done so.

Mr. John Battle: I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in stressing that not only the people of Leeds but Leeds United's players and supporters themselves are deeply outraged at the events that caused such distress in Bournemouth, and would wish to express their regret and sympathies to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and to his constituents.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the actions of a few who hitch a ride on the back of Leeds United football club are not those of its true supporters? I hope that not just the names of those found guilty of offences will be published but their addresses as well. The city of Leeds, Leeds United, and the club's genuine supporters should not be associated in the public's mind with the events that occurred over the weekend.
Is the Home Secretary aware that the club pleaded with its genuine fans, via the local media, television and radio, not to travel to Bournemouth, and that 5,000 of them remained behind in Leeds to watch the event on cinema screens at venues throughout the city? The genuine fans without tickets remained behind. It is others, who have hitched a ride on the club's good name this season, who have brought ignominy on the city of Leeds, which should not bear that shame.

Mr. Waddington: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the fact remains that Leeds United fans have acquired for themselves a very bad reputation and that people are most fearful of what will happen next season unless something serious is done.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing shame and dismay at the events of last weekend, perpetrated by those who hang on to the backs of our football clubs rather than by genuine fans. It is clear that those who planned the rioting in Bournemouth had the time and opportunity to do so because the fixture was arranged for the bank holiday weekend. The only way forward must be to follow the judgments of local chief constables if they want fixtures rearranged. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that,


whatever action is necessary, it will not be satisfactory to delay implementing changes in the law that are necessary to give force to the views of chief constables.

Mr. Waddington: One hopes that, even at this late stage, the Football League will recognise the common sense in what my hon. Friend has said. I do not see how anyone can quarrel with his analysis. What responsible body would continue to approve the holding of a fixture when the chief constable on the ground has said that it will lead to disorder?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary intends to meet the football authorities so soon. When he does, will he discuss the experience in Scotland? Although football hooliganism has not been entirely eliminated there, it has been substantially reduced. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some consideration to whether measures that have proved successful in Scotland may have a place in England and Wales?
Does the Home Secretary agree that the unfortunate consequence of the unhappy events last weekend is that the much-required and much-wanted return of English football clubs to Europe may yet again be delayed by the irresponsible actions of a minority who profess to be lovers of football but who clearly are not?

Mr. Waddington: It is not for me to comment on what may now happen to our application to re-enter European football. To put it mildly, these events have made the task of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who is in Rome now, even more difficult than it otherwise might have been. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the measures taken in Scotland, and I shall certainly talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about them. I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to see me if he would like to educate me about what goes on north of the border.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that, first and foremost, it is the protection of the public and property which must exercise his mind. He will meet the football authorities this afternoon. Will he investigate in some detail by whom and how the decision was taken to ignore the clear and realistic advice of the chief constable of Dorset? Many people think that football hooligans, who are a minority of supporters, have had too many reprieves, and that some measures must be taken to deal with such events.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. When the request was made last June, the police in Dorset got what one of my officials described today as "the brush-off". There was no reasoned argument in support of the decision not to heed the advice given.

Mr. Denis Howell: I associate myself with what the Home Secretary said about the disgraceful nature of events in Bournemouth, and I express my appreciation for the role of the police and my sympathy for the citizens. May I also say that some sympathy is due to the citizens of Leeds United who also abhor the trouble but who are now being set up as the fall guys. No decent Leeds United supporter had a ticket or travelled to Bournemouth without being a member of the membership scheme and of the Leeds United travel scheme. They were properly stewarded.
That begins to put the matter into perspective It proves that the House spent one year on the Football Spectators Act 1989 and, from the 10 answers that the Home Secretary has so far given today, he has confirmed that that Act has been totally ineffective, as we predicted. This is a matter—[Interruption.]—of criminality and public order, as we have frequently said, and responsibility for criminal behaviour lies with the Home Office.
I agree that the Football League has to accept its responsibility and I suggest—I hope that the Home Secretary will endorse this suggestion—that we cannot wait until the last day of the season, when promotion and relegation have to be decided, and when matches have to kick off at the same time, for obvious reasons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it would give clubs an advantage or a disadvantage. It might be more sensible to ask the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Football League to meet at the beginning of the season before fixtures are published to make necessary changes then rather than wait until trouble is imminent. I hope that the Home Secretary will endorse that suggestion.
What has happened to the football intelligence unit set up by the Home Office? Can we be told what intelligence was gathered about the likely violence—which turned out unfortunately to be true? What use was made of the intelligence? Since the leaders who organised and perpetrated the violence are well known, why was no action taken against them before Saturday?
Is it true that the Crown prosecution service has applied for hardly any bans on travelling to Italy for the World Cup for any of the thugs convicted in recent years? If that is the truth, what responsibility do the Government consider that they have in the matter?
Finally, will the Home Secretary ask the Minister for Sport, as I understand he is meeting UEFA this week, to draw attention to the fact that there has been similar violence in Holland, Germany, Italy and other countries, and to convey it to him that we insist that UEFA deals with the violence in all those countries, instead of being anti-English and anti-English football in the way in which they operate?

Mr. Waddington: I am not very impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's last point. Whatever happens in any other country, I am sure that he will agree with me that the scenes that have taken place over the years in our towns have brought great disgrace to Britain, and that we should be bearing that in mind continually instead of trying to find excuses in bad behaviour in other countries.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expressions of sympathy for the police and the citizens of Bournemouth. I have not the slightest doubt that many people who travelled to Bournemouth were decent people wanting only to watch a good match, but the fact remains that people who claimed to be Leeds supporters caused the trouble.
As for the Football Spectators Act 1989, it has to be borne in mind that my right hon. Friends tried to do something about the problem of football hooliganism. It has been noteworthy that Opposition Members have never tried to do anything. The right hon. Gentleman will remember what a fool the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made of himself when I made the statement about the Taylor report. It then turned out that the Labour party certainly did not want a football membership scheme, but wanted


nothing else instead. Labour Members did not even want to accept the principal recommendation of the Taylor report for all-seater grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman made a somewhat obscure and strange remark about the need for the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Football League to have a meeting at the beginning of the season. I am quite sure that he will agree that the Dorset police wrote to the league well before the beginning of the season—in June 1989. The right hon. Gentleman still has not answered the all-important question—why on earth did not the league act on the advice which it was given then by the chief constable?
The right hon. Gentleman asked another rather obscure question—why action was not taken before Saturday against the leaders of the trouble at Bournemouth. I do not know what powers of preventive detention the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but if he has any information about those people, I should be grateful if he would give it to me.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the courts now have the power to make restriction orders, but it is not for me to lecture them on when they should make restriction orders and when they should not. It is for the Home Office to make it clear to the courts that they have those powers. It is for the courts fearlessly and independently to decide whether they should use those powers.

Explosives (Clyde)

Mr. George Foulkes: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the dumping by ICI of explosives in the Firth of Clyde.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Fishermen working in the Firth of Clyde have recovered explosive material and detonators in their nets. It is believed that these items may be associated with the dump site at Birch Point used until last year by ICI's Nobel Division for the disposal of explosive waste. The fishermen claim that the material was recovered outwith the limits of the dump site. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has advised fishermen of the steps to be taken should they find explosive material in their nets and has instructed them to report the precise location of the incident so that further investigations can be made. A DAFS research vessel will reach the area as soon as possible to establish the situation through underwater surveys. Until these surveys are completed, it is not possible to offer an informed opinion on how the material has come to be located outwith the dump site.
The dump site has been used for many years. It is clearly identified on Admiralty navigation charts as an explosive dump site. Fishermen are well aware of its existence and position and know that it has to be avoided. Disposal operations at the site have been strictly controlled and monitored by DAFS since 1974 under the Dumping at Sea Act and, more recently, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Regular surveys have been carried out by DAFS to establish the accuracy of dumping and the effects on the marine environment. Since 1985, all dumping operations have been carried out in the presence of a representative of DAFS, the Department of Transport or the Health and Safety Executive. For the past three operations, the dumping vessel was fitting with a marine position recorder.
ICI's Nobel Division was the only holder of a licence to dispose of industrial waste at sea in Scotland. Its licence expired in August 1989 and was not renewed. This was in line with the decision of the second North sea conference in 1987 to terminate the dumping of industrial waste at sea by the end of 1989. The disposal of detonators at sea has been prohibited by DAFS since 1984.
The Clyde Fishermen's Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have been advised of the situation. The advice given to fishermen by DAFS is that any explosive material found in nets should be returned immediately to the sea and that the position should be marked with a buoy for further investigation and recovery, as necessary, by the relevant authorities. Fishermen have been instructed to report the location of all incidents to DAFS and the coastguard immediately. This information will greatly assist the ongoing investigations.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, especially as he also has a constituency interest in the matter. Is he aware, as I understand today from Patrick Stewart, the secretary of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, that the extent of the explosives on the surface of the Firth of Clyde is far greater than originally understood, and that the explosives are covering hundreds of square miles and going as far north as Tarbert? Is the


hon. Gentleman also aware that yesterday and today the coastguard has been broadcasting a warning on channel 16 instructing vessels to steer clear of the material? As it covers such a wide area, does it not inhibit the movement of many vessels up and down the Firth of Clyde?
Will the Minister institute a full-scale inquiry into how this dumping took place, whether the explosives were dumped in the appropriate place, and whether they were dumped in proper containers? It appears that they were in hessian sacks. If that was so, it was irresponsible. Will the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance today that all the material will be cleaned up, that the Firth of Clyde will be made safe for all navigation and that the cost of cleaning up will be borne by ICI if it is clear that it has been responsible for the dumping?
Will the Minister give a guarantee that there will be no more dumping of such material—or of any explosives or other dangerous material—in the Firth of Clyde? The firth is used not only by fishermen, but by submarines, by ferries and, as I know myself, by pleasure craft throughout the whole year. Is it not irresponsible and dangerous to continue dumping such material in the Firth of Clyde? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no more licences and that dumping will stop forthwith?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman referred to my constituency interest. That is a different matter as the material found in my constituency is believed to be white phosphorus and the distance is such that it seems unlikely to derive from the ICI site.
Initial reports suggest that some of the material has been lifted up to 18 miles from the dump, although the dump itself is only about half a mile in radius and is very deep—75 fathoms, which is about twice the depth of the surrounding sea bed. Fishermen were advised on 5 May, after the first incident, to keep clear of that area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are inquiring closely into the matter to establish the exact circumstances. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is in close touch with the Clyde Fishermen's Association and with ICI, which has been extremely co-operative.
Disposal in hessian sacks was one of the tightening up procedures introduced in 1985 under the Food and Environment Protection Act of that year because it was felt that such packaging would allow material to leach into the water and disperse, which would be a desirable development.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a guarantee that there would be no more industrial dumping. I am happy to give him such a guarantee. The licence was terminated last year under the commitments that we gave in the North sea conference and we have made it clear that such licences will not be renewed.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware of the deep alarm and worry that my constituents who fish out of the ports of Campbeltown and Tarbert and their families feel at the disclosures made over the weekend? Can he say how it will be possible to clear the area of this noxious material so that the Clyde becomes clean and safe for all those who use it, including fishermen, and for the nuclear submarines that exercise up and down it?
If fishing is restricted, will the fishermen, who are already under considerable pressure, be properly compensated?

Mr. Lang: I fully understand the anxiety felt by fishermen in the hon. Lady's constituency and elsewhere. If they find such material, they should report the matter at once to DAFS, the local fisheries officer and the coastguard. They should at once return any explosive material to the sea, mark the position carefully, and report the incident.
The hon. Lady asked about clearing the site. As I have said, the site is a narrow one—about half a mile in radius —and it is twice the depth of the surrounding water. It has been used for some 50 years, but will no longer be used, for industrial dumping. Some dumping of sledging spoil continues to take place, although that has the effect of reducing the exposure of other dumped material.

Mr. David Marshall: As we approach the holiday season on the Clyde coast, can the Minister guarantee that Glaswegians will still be able to indulge in one of their favourite pastimes and go doon the watter in complete safety?
Will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about who will pay for the mess to be cleared up?

Mr. Lang: I see no reason why anybody who is keen to go doon the watter should not do so with the same confidence as they have done in previous years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of clearing up. That matter will have to be assessed in the light of the clearing up operations that may be necessary.

Mr. John McFall: The Minister does not paint a reassuring picture of the Clyde: he says that we have white phosphorus in the south and explosives in the north. Submarines, both conventional and nuclear, go up and down the Clyde in my constituency. Has the Ministry of Defence been consulted about this matter? What is the Minister's opinion with regard to the MOD and safety?
Finally, on the environment, great steps have been taken in cleaning up the Clyde. Will the Minister give us an assurance here today that he will personally charge ICI with cleaning up the mess so that we may restore the Clyde to its former beauty?

Mr. Lang: There is no evidence that nuclear submarines have been adversely affected by the incident. The dump is some 75 fathoms deep and there is no reason why it should pose a problem to nuclear submarines or why the submarines should pose a problem to the dump.
A number of measures have been taken to tighten up the control of dumping in recent years, particularly under the Food and Environment Protection Act, and industrial dumping has now been discontinued.
The question of liability is not a matter for me and it is too soon to assess the clearing up costs.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that those of us who have had constituency relations with ICI in Scotland have found it to be a most careful, competent and responsible company? Will he ascertain whether there has been any evidence of infringement of the agreement to stop dumping since last autumn? Will he make a rather different inquiry to ascertain whether it is possible that the new trawling equipment operated by many deep trawlers, which ravages the marine environment and the sea bed, has raked up the explosives far away from the area in which they were dumped? Before jumping to the conclusion that ICI is at


fault, will he look at what the fishermen themselves might have done also and look at other circumstances during the inquiry?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about ICI. It has been extremely responsible in its approach to the matter.
In recent years, dumping has been subject to much more stringent requirements than before. For example, dumping has been monitored, there have been regular surveys of the dump, and a position recorder has been used in the past three dumpings to isolate specifically the position of the vessel doing the dumping. There is no evidence of any infringement of the dumping regulations. The detonators that have been found must have been dumped before 1984, since which time they have been banned.
On new trawling equipment or practices, any fishermen trawling in the Arran trench itself, where the dump is located, must know that they are in that area because of the substantially increased depth. They know that it is marked as a hazard on Admiralty charts and that it is not an area where they are advised to go.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister says that the site has been used for the dumping of waste for about 50 years. How many of those years have seen the dumping of the material about which we are now speaking? Has the Minister of State any estimate of the exact amount of explosives and detonators that have been dumped there?

Mr. Lang: I have no evidence as to how much was dumped before 1974, when, under the Dumping at Sea Act, the licensing procedure began. Of course, as I explained to the House earlier, equipment such as detonators has been prevented from being dumped since 1984. I believe that ICI had a licence last year to dump up to 250 tonnes, although I understand that it dumped only about 100 tonnes.

Mr. William McKelvey: I am glad that the Minister has taken on board his responsibility to ensure that there will be a full inquiry into how the material was uplifted from the sea bed, apparently from an area in which it should not have been in the first place. As dangerous and frightening as this matter is, does not the Minister consider it more frightening that beaches on the Clyde coast are polluted with human refuse? None of those beaches comes up to European standards. When the Minister is investigating the explosives matter, will he look also at the pollution that is happening daily on the coastline of Ayrshire?

Mr. Lang: Beaches are a matter for the district council, not for me. However, I know that continuous efforts are being made to upgrade the quality of our beaches. A certain amount of dumping of sewage will continue off the

Garroch Head until 1998, but that is a substantial way from any beach and has been used satisfactorily for some time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the fact that the Minister of State clearly accepts that this is a serious incident that has given rise to widespread public concern. As he has made it clear that in recent years dumping in the designated area has been closely monitored and that officials have been present while it is taking place, does that amount to a guarantee that there has been no unauthorised dumping at least by major firms in the area?
However, will the Minister of State accept that one of the most alarming factors is that large amounts of detonators and explosive material—people have been talking of up to one and a half tonnes being recovered by four boats—have been appearing several miles from the designated area? However deep the water may be there, it raises the question of the effect of tides and other circumstances in spreading the material and the possibility that, if there is a lot there for historic reasons, it may continue to be a menace for a considerable time to come. Will the Minister of State look carefully at what has happened and at the likely future storage in the designated area, which may spread, and consider what guarantees can be given that this will be prevented and that potential threat dealt with?
I unreservedly welcome the fact that the Minister of State has stated not only that ICI is no longer dumping explosives at sea and has no licence to do so but that no future licences will be granted and that the designated area is no longer active in that sense. The Minister said that it is clear that inquiries will be made. Will he give an undertaking that, to reassure public opinion, particularly about the possibility of volatile material drifting in the way that I have described, the report will be published and its findings made public so that there can be full discussion of the matter?

Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that this is a serious matter. I cannot give him the guarantee for which he asks, that no unauthorised dumping has taken place, but that is a point that I am as keen as he is to establish. Large amounts have allegedly been picked up by fishing boats in the past few days. One fishing boat picked up the original amount after which a warning was given to fishing boats to keep well clear of the area. Thereafter, four fishing vessels picked up explosive matter in the area.
We have diverted a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland research vessel to the area. It intends to carry out an underwater survey, and until the information resulting from that survey is available I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's other questions in more detail. I am happy to assure him that we shall publish the findings of our inquiry in due course.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.

European Fighter Aircraft (Radar)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the selection of the radar for the European fighter aircraft.
The House will be aware that the great majority of contracts for the development of this aircraft, including those for the engine and the airframe, have already been let, and good progress is being made in those. However, the decision on the choice of the radar has remained outstanding. The radar is the key element of the aircraft's weapon system as it governs EFA's ability to detect and identify airborne targets beyond visual range and to engage those that are hostile, and to achieve this in a very difficult electronic environment. The radar is thus required to meet a most demanding specification, and it has required the most rigorous scrutiny of the alternative proposals to establish whether they meet the necessary criteria.
Against that background, the NATO EFA manage-ment agency proposed the selection of the ECR90 radar offered by the consortium led by Ferranti. There were, however, concerns about the possible technical, commer-cial and financial risks involved in pursuing that choice.
Those concerns have now been resolved and I can inform the House that the four EFA partner nations—Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom—have selected an international consortium, known as Euroradar, led by GEC Ferranti Defence Systems Limited, to develop the ECR90 radar for EFA. Accordingly, Eurofighter, the EFA airframe prime contractor, is today awarding the radar sub-contract to them. The development contract will be awarded on a firm price basis and will be of six years' duration.
I am pleased to be able to make this announcement today, and I express my gratitude to my ministerial colleagues in our partner nations and their officials for their constructive and helpful approach. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and the officials of the Procurement Executive for their considerable efforts in bringing matters to such a satisfactory conclusion in what the House will recall were exceptionally difficult circumstances.
My statement today represents a major milestone for British airborne radar technology in this most important multinational development project, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome the Secretary of State's understandably long delayed statement on the award of the EFA radar contract to the ECR90 consortium led by Ferranti Defence Systems. This will provide the job security guarantees for which the workers in Edinburgh and throughout the United Kingdom have waited for so long.
Can the Secretary of State comment on the employment consequences for other GEC employees at present working for Marconi Radar? Now that the Ferranti Defence Systems financial base has been re-established, may I ask him to explain the means by which the technical, commercial and financial risks to which he referred have been resolved? In particular, can he dispel the rumours mentioned in Jane's Defence Weekly of 17 March 1990

that the British Government had signed a memorandum of understanding with the West German Government covering indemnification by Britain in the event of cost overruns in the development budget? Has consideration been given by the parties involved to the suggestion by the Luftwaffe that a more defensive role could be sought for the aircraft?
Again, I express my congratulations and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to all those who have been involved in winning this contract, which we hope will remove the last obstacle from the realisation of the project, which is so important for the defence of Europe and the cutting edge of British technology.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I take to be a clear welcome for the Government's efforts in this respect. Perhaps he would prefer to forget his earlier comments when he suggested that there had been some kind of dirty dealing. He is right in saying that there has been a major effort to achieve this important contract, which will be of great benefit, not least to those who work in the old Ferranti radar division and who are a key part of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems. While I cannot answer the point that he raised about Marconi, I am authorised by GEC to say that it expects that 95 per cent. of the British share of the work will be done in Edinburgh. That assurance is important because it implies recognition that the technical contribution of Ferranti workers is important.
There is not a memorandum of understanding because a memorandum of understanding exists between all member countries in the consortium. However, the British Government have given a side letter to the German Government, of which the House was notified in a departmental minute. It gives assurances about any extra costs that might be incurred by the German company responsible for the integration of the radar. That side letter is backed by a back-to-back indemnity from GEC, the parent company of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems. Therefore, there is no risk to public money and the commercial risks have been properly backed by a properly resourced defence contractor. That is an important element, the achievement of which was a key ingredient in securing this important contract.

Mr. Michael Jack: This news will be of great relief to and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in Fylde who work on the prototypes of the aircraft. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on their efforts.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the announcement could not have been made if the four partner countries were not fully committed to the project all the way through the development to the production phase? Can he assure me that the selection of the radar will present no barriers to export possibilities for the aircraft and that export customers will be fully involved at an early stage in the development to ensure that what orders are available can be executed quickly?

Mr. King: On the latter point, that will certainly be true, subject to the normal controls on the export of military equipment. I can give that assurance, and my hon. Friend understands that well.
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I am aware that this has been a worrying period for many people involved in the project. The House does not need me to


rehearse the exceptionally difficult commercial develop-ments that occurred and the previous difficulties of Ferranti, which threatened to jeopardise the whole project. It has been a matter of some encouragement that we have found other companies that were prepared to become involved in the way that they have. It is encouraging for the future of British industry that the project has gone ahead in the way that it has.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will be aware that his announcement will be met with unanimous approval throughout the United Kingdom, not least because it removes an economic and military uncertainty.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no risk to the United Kingdom Government in financial terms in the event of any cost overruns on the project? He will be aware that this year general elections are planned in Germany and that a body of opinion is not wholly in favour of continuing German participation in the EFA project. As Secretary of State for Defence, what consideration has he given to the possible consequences for United Kingdom defence policy if Germany reduces or even withdraws from its agreed participation in the EFA programme?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct in that the undertaking in the side letter given by the British Government of entering into a contingent guarantee, which has been reported to the House, is backed by a back-to-back indemnity—a total indemnity —against any such costs arising from GEC. Therefore, the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about whether costs fall to the British Government is no.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what cognisance we took of a possible change of Government in the Federal Republic of Germany. I do not know what cognisance the German Government thought of taking of any possible change in this country. I do not know what the project's future or the prospects of workers in Ferranti Defence Systems would be were the appalling prospect of a change in the Government here to come about. Our purpose is to deal with the position as it is and work in this country's best interests. I am sure that all our efforts and those of the workers in GEC Ferranti Defence Systems will ensure that there is no such change of policy.

Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that his announcement ensures that this country and Europe will remain at the forefront of airborne radar development into the foreseeable future, which is important?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that this is recognised by those with a far greater expertise than me to be a significant development in radar that will give a significant capability to EFA. As I made clear in my statement, that is the key element in the aircraft's capability. We believe that we have now achieved the best radar for the purpose and the alliance—one that will give it a fine aircraft. I hope that the prospects for the aircraft with the radar will be extremely good.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has been absolutely right to

stand firm in support of the ECR90 system because of its enormous importance in relation to the development of indigenous European technology and British industry but, above all, because he has a responsibility to the pilots who will eventually fly the planes? In standing firm, he has ensured that they will have the best radar system available. Does he accept that by confirming the GEC Ferranti Edinburgh operation as world leaders in airborne radar he is providing the basis for probably thousands of jobs in the next century, radar systems that will go into the European fighter aircraft and systems that will be sold for other planes and, hopefully, other civil uses?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am aware of the close interest that he takes, and has done for a considerable period, in this matter. That is understandable because of his constituency interests. I note his comments, which I presume to take as a measure of the confidence of his constituents who work for the company in their prospects, provided the contract can be achieved. I take great encouragement from that.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on standing firm on this contract. The contract is excellent news. Does he agree that, despite the commercial difficulties that Ferranti has had, the decision to take the ECR90 is a ringing endorsement of the technical expertise of the GEC Ferranti company, not just by us, but by other countries, some of which were trying to promote their own radars?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there is wide recognition of the technical skills and capability of those involved, particularly in the original Ferranti company. Financial resource is required as well as technical skill on a project with the length of life that this one is likely to have. That is why the development of GEC Ferranti Defence Systems was a key element in the successful achievement of the contract.

Dr. John Reid: This is good news for Britain, British technology and particularly for Scotland and Scottish workers in GEC Ferranti, including those in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State make it plain that, whatever discussions took place during Ferranti's troubled period, today's decision had nothing to do with political pressure but was taken on the merits of the case? Is that not a vindication of the importance that was placed on Ferranti throughout that troubled period by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he join me in congratulating all involved in Ferranti on their efforts, as I congratulate him—it would be less than generous not to do so—for his efforts and sterling work to ensure that the contract eventually came to where it should, Britain?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he did not think that I was churlish. I have sought to pay tribute to the technical competence and capability of those who worked in the original radar side of Ferranti. Clearly technical merit, confidence in management capability, and the resources available in support of the project have been key elements in the achievement. While it has been the responsibility of the companies to demonstrate their commercial and technical capability, I hope it is also seen that the Government have fully backed and supported their efforts.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome announcement once again vindicates the strength and purpose of European-wide collaboration which can work successfully if properly handled? Does he also agree that it vindicates that an acquisition carried out in circumstances of rescue can create a strong, combined defence equipment entity which can compete in international markets? Does he agree, therefore, that the merger was justified?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Dykes: Can my right hon. Friend say specifically what the effect will be on executives and employees of GEC Marconi in Stanmore, Middlesex?

Mr. King: The latter point is interesting. Looking to the future, with perhaps some changes in procurement and in response to the changing defence scene, it is difficult to see how much work there would have been for two companies in airborne radar. I think that the strengthened grouping could have exciting prospects. Obviously the benefits of a European collaborative approach can be seen. We look at these matters on a case-by-case basis. There are other cases where we have not thought it so profitable or advantageous to proceed. We consider the cases in a genuinely pragmatic sense.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Minister will be aware that his announcement will be welcomed by the work force at Ferranti Defence Systems in Edinburgh, among whom are some of my constituents. Perhaps we should not repeat on this favourable announcement what they have been through recently. Can the Minister tell us what will happen to the other factories which were hived off as a consequence of the GEC Ferranti Defence Systems takeover? For example, I have a Ferranti plant in Midlothian. Can the Minister tell us whether, as a consequence of his announcement, there will be a spin-off in work for people employed in other factories?

Mr. King: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I do not know the details of the plant to which the hon. Member refers. If he cares to write to me, I shall see whether I can give him further information.

Mr. Robert Hayward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. As he will be aware, it is of particular import to thousands of workers in and around Bristol. I may be touching on areas of commercial confidentiality, but can he say whether there have been any discussions with the French Government about their possible involvement in the project in view of the fact that it will go ahead and is clearly a better alternative than the Rafale project which they are putting forward as potential competitors?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his constituency interest and of the interest of people in the west country. I am not aware of any change of view since the French decided to go another way. I am not aware of any changed proposal. They have made certain offers to me, but I am not sure that they have been open to offers themselves.

Mr. Tani Dalyell: Amid the swirl of congratulations, could we spare a word for the electronics and physics departments of universities which have made this triumph possible? In particular, could the Ministry of

Defence use its considerable influence in aid of Professor Des Smith and his unit at Heriot-Watt university which, like many other physics and electronics departments, is chronically short of money, particularly for postgraduates? Can the Ministry of Defence talk to universities about the issue?

Mr. King: Obviously one remembers the distinguished work of Heriot-Watt in radar development. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman fairly makes, and I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What proportion of the contract will each of the partner countries receive? Does my right hon. Friend welcome what appears to be a defence consensus from all the Opposition parties? They seem to be supporting the idea of the European fighter aircraft, but does he suspect that, while they are interested in the jobs that will go to Scotland, they might well cancel the project if they had the defence of the realm in their hands?

Mr. King: We estimate that the development contract is worth about £300 million and our share under the EFA project will be approximately 33⅓ per cent. The German share is also 33⅓ per cent., with 21 per cent. for the Italians and 12 per cent. for the Spanish company. As well as the design leadership, that represents about £100 million worth of work for GEC Ferranti Defence Systems.
My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of the Opposition. Perhaps I have been showing my usual moderation today. However, it appears that the other Labour party is absent from the Chamber. On other matters, two thirds of the Labour party call for a £5 billion cut in our defence expenditure and there is not the slightest prospect of any future Labour Minister—should there ever be one—being able to make an announcement of the sort that I have made today.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware of the criticism over the delay in the final settlement and announcement? For a year thousands of jobs have hung in the balance and the delay over the statement and the resolution have contributed to that. Does he think that the Government could have done more to bring about an earlier resolution? What steps did the Government consider to try to speed up the process during a year of delay which may well have been unnecessary?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman could make those comments only if he was supremely ignorant of some of the background to these matters. It is highly significant that his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) singularly omitted any such criticism because he has a far more profound understanding of the difficulty of the issues with which we have been grappling. I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East by saying that.
I assure the House that the prospects for making the announcement that I have had the honour to make to the House were very bleak a few months ago. If it had not been for some extremely hard and dedicated work by some of the people to whom I have referred, we could not have been at all sure that the announcement could be made today.

Mr. John McFall: I am the only member of the Select Committee on Defence who is present, but I


am sure that I speak for the entire Committee when I say that I welcome the contract and the efforts of the Secretary of State and his Department. Bearing in mind the difficulties that have surrounded the project, can the Secretary of State tell us how confident he is that the aircraft will be built? There is a view that EFA will not go beyond the developmental stage, and that is not only a minority view which is held by individuals in West Germany, in particular.

Mr. King: Provided Britain keeps a Conservative Government, I am confident that the project will go forward. The hon. Gentleman must search his conscience, if he has ambitions in another direction, to see whether he could answer that question himself. It is important to achieve the development programme. My announcement means that the cost of a very important development programme will be shared. It effectively puts the last piece in the jigsaw of the European fighter aircraft development. That major programme now goes ahead and the sharing of costs at the most important stage has been achieved. If others decide at a later stage that they want fewer aircraft, it will be much less of a problem than if we had not achieved joint development.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations on his recognition that public expenditure both develops and maintains jobs? Will this particular expenditure definitely result in civil aviation advantages? When the work is completed, will the firm depend on further defence contracts, or does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in view of the current changes in Europe, steps should be taken to direct the skill, expertise and high technology from which the work force benefits towards peaceful civil aviation work?

Mr. King: That question has already been answered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who I think knows rather more about the subject than his hon. Friend.

Mr. O'Neill: May I reiterate that, since 25 April 1988, when my predecessor as defence spokesman—my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—said in the House that he welcomed the original decision to proceed with the project, the Labour party has backed it, and will continue to do so? We recognise the importance of a contract that will provide jobs, not only in the short term but well into the 21st century. It will also provide a stepping stone for the radar technology that will be required by future aircraft, both civil and military.
We also recognise the significance of the European fighter aircraft for the defence of our continent. We believe that others too will wish to buy it, because of its large British element, in which we can take pride and from which the continent of Europe can take comfort.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It would be churlish of me to criticise him, especially in view of his final comments. He knows, however, that the project will involve the expenditure of some £8 billion to provide the aircraft and to cover the development costs, in the United Kingdom alone. Since the clear statement of support that, according to the hon. Gentleman, was made in 1988, the 1989 Labour party conference has proposed and carried—by a majority of two to one—a reduction of £5 billion per annum. We can now clock up the certainty that the EFA is sacred and will not be touched: that was helpful of the hon. Gentleman. On some future occasion we may try to draw him further on the subject of which items are sacred and where the cuts are to be made.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your practice when calling Front-Bench spokesmen on private notice questions? We have dealt with two such questions today, and on both occasions you called the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson last. I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I am not usually the first to rush to the defence of my party's Front Benchers; they are generally able to look after themselves. I raise my point of order in the interests of the Labour party in general. On the first private notice question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was called last —some minutes after the end of the television transmission, I understand.
Will you look at the matter afresh, Mr. Speaker, and in future invite the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson to speak a little earlier rather than giving him the last slot? Otherwise, if broadcasting continues to end as early as it did today, the Labour party will be at a permanent disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat surprised. I have always been anxious to give Back Benchers all the possible benefits and bonuses and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it has long been the practice for Back Benchers to be cut off automatically when the Front-Bench spokesman is called. I shall of course consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that what he suggests would gravely disadvantage him and his hon. Friends. As for the television cameras, I am not responsible for when they are switched on or off; I am concerned with giving Back Benchers fair opportunities in the House.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are responsible for ensuring that there is no tedious repetition in the conduct of our affairs. In recent weeks, however, one word has been repeated almost to the point of tedium. We have heard about flagships sinking; we have heard about flagships being blown off course.
Since Thursday, no mention of flagships has been made. I wonder whether, in the light of the election results in Wandsworth, you, Mr. Speaker, will be as generous as you have been to Labour Members who have used it in the past. Otherwise, we may be called to order if we refer too often to "flagships sailing on", or "flagships in full sail".

Mr. Speaker: I have become something of an expert on tedious repetition, but hon. Members are ingenious in

finding descriptions that are new to me. I had never heard the phrase "level playing fields", for instance, before I occupied the Chair.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for an ingeniously acquired bonus. Have you received a request from the helpful Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement on the flagrant flouting of last Friday's referral of the subject of a Consolidated Fund Bill debate—the Atlas steelworks in Armadale—to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
William Cook plc of Sheffield gave an undertaking to the Office of Fair Trading that it would not require key equipment, and would not remove it from electric arc furnaces, or remove tanks that are essential to the continued operation of this important foundry.
Has the DTI done anything about the unusual circumstances in which, despite referral to the MMC, William Cook has cocked the proverbial snook to remove the possibility of the foundry and its highly skilled pattern-making work force continuing in business?

Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Gentleman full marks for ingenuity, but I must tell him that I have received no request relating to a statement.

Mr Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) about tedious repetition, on which you commented, Mr. Speaker. The use of the word "flagship" originated in the public relations office of the Conservative party, when it was applied to Bradford. You will be delighted to learn, Mr. Speaker, that that flagship has now sunk without trace. Pickles and his gang have been booted out of the town hall by a massive majority of Bradford's citizens, and that particular tedious repetition can now be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am becoming a little tired of flagships.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Voluntary Euthanasia

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit voluntary euthanasia subject to certain conditions; and for connected purposes.
I should like to begin with a short story. In a small room in a small house are two men in their 30s and a woman of 50. The woman is dying of lung cancer; one of the men is her doctor. The doctor explains that it will all be over in a few minutes. The woman sits up and asks for a window to be opened, but the movement towards the window is stopped by the doctor: it makes no difference, he says.
Thirty seconds later, the woman sits up and utters her last words in her native Yorkshire: "I'm deeing, I'm deeing." A few seconds later, after an agonising death, she has been released from all pain and suffering. During the brief period that preceded her death, she was drugged and too ill to recognise anyone in the room.
That woman was my mother. I was with her at the end, and there was much that I would have liked to discuss with her. I wanted to explain many things; I wanted to talk about love, sorrow, guilt and the peace that she was about to enter. After her death I returned to the north-east from Yorkshire. For a whole year, it was as if a video in my brain was turned on every morning, showing the last moments of my mother's struggle for life. I would say to myself, "Please do not let it happen today", but it has happened again and again.
Preparing for this speech has been very painful. I knew that it would cause me pain before I began, but my belief in voluntary euthanasia encouraged me to break down the pain barrier. I do not want my family to suffer the same experience should I become terminally ill, with no hope of recovery. I would want to talk to them rationally about many things while my brain was still active. I would want to discuss a range of issues, some emotional, some practical. I would want to make the necessary arrangements for my death, and I would want us to be able to laugh together as we had always done as a family. I would want to assure them that for a long time I had had no fear of death, only of dying. I would want the privilege of being able to have my life ended when I made the choice, and to be with the people, my family, whom I love the most.
The essence of the Bill is about individual choice, about free choice; a contract entered into voluntarily. It is about the right to die with dignity. "Voluntary" is the critical word. Even if there were an Act, I do not know whether my mother would have acted any differently. I do not know how many members of my family would make a decision similar to that which I wish to make. They must be able to decide for themselves.
I also understand the views of those who disagree with me, both in the House and outside. I respect the arguments of those who see problems. But because euthanasia depends on the will of an individual, a decision freely taken, others should not deny that right to those who have chosen for themselves.
Opinion polls—I do not use them as a major prop in my argument—taken in a number of countries, show that about 75 per cent. of people support the right of individuals to decide for themselves when to die. Clearly,

that does not mean that 75 per cent. think that it should happen, but that 75 per cent. think that voluntary euthanasia should be available.
I appeared on a television programme about voluntary euthanasia a few months ago. As hon. Members would expect, I received a number of letters from viewers. Whenever controversial issues are debated in the Chamber or are the subject of television broadcasts, we usually receive a mix of views and often letters of outrage. On this occasion, I did not receive a single letter against my proposition. Again, I make no more of that, only record the fact.
It would be useful at this juncture to inform the House about the strict conditions that are necessary before an individual can have his or her life ended. The patient must be terminally ill without any possibility of recovery. The patient must be of sound mind and able to make the decision. The patient must be suffering mentally and physically to a degree which he or she finds unbearable and have a deep and sustained wish to die. The decision to assist a patient to end the misery of pain must be taken by a doctor, and the state of the person and the doctor's decision must be confirmed by a second doctor. The patient should have the right to consult a priest or anyone else of his choice. A doctor, and only a doctor, should administer the necessary drugs.
Those conditions are based on the guidelines set out in the Rotterdam criminal court which, if followed, would exempt the doctor concerned from prosecution. They must be strictly adhered to because there is some concern about the possibility of ending lives for wrong or criminal motives. It is essential that there is no coercion for wrongful reasons. It is clear that if any individual steps outside the guidelines, he or she will be subject to the due processes of the law.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, a doctor must also have proper, adequate and necessary protection. Fortunately, cases that have come before the courts in the United Kingdom have ended with a not guilty verdict, such as occurred earlier this year.
I return to the voluntary theme. The patient's doctor, or any doctor, has the right to refuse just as he has the right to administer drugs. At a meeting I attended recently, the Hippocratic oath was mentioned. I do not want to make an issue of that, except to note that some doctors have clearly acted in the interests of their patients and outside their oath. However, I would defend a doctor's right simply to mention the Hippocratic oath as sufficient reason not to take part in voluntary euthanasia.
Yes, any parliamentary Bill must give doctors the necessary protection. After all, if a Bill similar to the one that I envisage were enacted, a major responsibility would lie with the doctors. If a doctor acts to end a patient's life, surely it is wrong that he is knowingly committing a crime.
My Bill seeks to permit voluntary euthanasia for those, and only those, who desire it as a result of a decision freely taken.
I have a file of letters here, which anyone is welcome to read. I want to give two or three people an opportunity to add their voice to mine this afternoon. Rather than mention names, I shall simply mention places. One person wrote to me from Devon saying:
Like you, I too watched my mother die and it was an experience which will live with me for ever. How I wish that I could have helped her die with dignity.
From Horncastle, a person wrote saying:


I have seen four of my relations die in distressing circumstances and I do not want it to happen to me.
A letter from Stokesley says:
 I have long held the view that a good death should be part of a good life and that it should be lawful to arrange for this.
A letter from London says:
I know that I am getting near to the end of my life and that the fear of how I might be going to die just haunts me.
From the Wirral, a letter says:
Last year, I watched my sister lose a long battle with cancer. I do not need to describe the horrors of her final months to you, do I?
The answer to that is clearly, no.
In view of the overwhelming support outside the House —75 per cent. is the figure that is regularly quoted—I hope that the aspirations and hopes of the many will be reflected inside the House today.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: No hon. Member will doubt the sincerity or compassion with which the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) sought leave to introduce the Bill today. We all respect and understand the close family experience which prompted him to do so. I suspect that few hon. Members do not have a personal experience or family background on which they can draw, as a result of which many will know the problems, difficulties and agonies of living alongside and caring for somebody who is deeply sick or terminally ill.
But it would literally be a grave error of judgment if leave were given to introduce the Bill. It would give quite the wrong impression outside the House. We are all sympathetic to and understanding about this vexed issue, but the House, uniquely, is the last bastion of people's lives and liberties, and there must be the most compelling reasons before we take those rights away.
There are four fundamental objections to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. First, it would materially undermine the sanctity of life. Secondly—for me this is the most important—it would open the way to serious abuses. Thirdly, it is far from clear that the medical profession would go along with the proposal put forward. Finally, it would undermine much of the splendid work of the hospice movement in Britain and the strides that have been made in the technology and techniques of caring for the dying.
There must remain a presumption that the taking of human life is illegal and that that is a basic protection; an inalienable right available to the individual. I do not say that the Bill would amount to a slippery slope towards compulsory euthanasia, but the principle would be breached, and substantially so.
Secondly, we must all accept that the very sick and the dying are particularly vulnerable people. They are open to suggestion. Many of those people, bless them, do not want to be a burden to others and, when they may be less able to make up their minds rationally, may feel that they should take their own lives with the help of others. There can be no guarantee that euthanasia would be voluntary. For those reasons, we should take seriously recent cases that have given grounds for concern about the way in which ostensibly near and dear members of a family have allowed elderly relatives to die in a state of penury and neglect.
A report by the British Medical Association published in 1988 concluded that

there is a distinction between an active intervention to terminate another person's life and a decision not to prolong life.
That is an important distinction for the House to draw. The report concluded that
An active intervention by anybody to terminate another person's life should remain illegal.
That is what the doctors say, and we should think twice and thrice before negating their view. I would far rather have faith in the discretion and professional judgment of doctors than allow many people, at their weakest and most vulnerable moments, to be allowed—and I dare say encouraged in certain cases—to take their lives.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected such a proposition when it considered the possibility of introducing a new offence of mercy killing. The Law Commission also considered the matter, and while it felt that there could be cases in which the crime of murder could be downrated to manslaughter, it too believed that there was no case for introducing a new offence of mercy killing. Right hon. and hon. Members should be left in no doubt that many cases of euthanasia would amount to such, and there would be contested situations. The House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment considered the matter last year and recommended that there be no change in current law.
The hospices movement will be familiar to many hon. and right hon. Members. The quality of life of people dying in this country has been enhanced considerably by hospices and by new techniques for treating and curing pain. I refer, for example, to the fact that the administration of a drug in a slightly larger dose at the onset of cumulative pain in a progressive, terminal disease can, strangely enough, result in no increase in the dosage being required later to maintain precisely the same threshold of pain relief. A person dying of cancer and in increasing pain can enjoy the same level of pain relief with a constant dose. That is clearly a simple but amazing discovery, made in recent years, that helps the terminally ill.
Much of the work done by hospices, the enthusiasm of their staff, the joy that they bring to families of the dying would be undermined if we were to breach existing principles. The early-day motion that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington tabled last January received the support of only 33 hon. Members. We shall see what happens today, but I do not believe that support for the hon. Gentleman's Bill will reflect the 1989 opinion poll to which he referred, in which fewer than 2,000 people were questioned. Often, one needs to examine the questions asked in such surveys, as well as the answers. The question put in that opinion poll was,
If suffering became intolerable, should the law be changed to allow adults to obtain medical help to an immediate, peaceful death?
That is an appealing question, and no doubt many people did answer yes. However, if the same people had been asked whether they were in favour of mercy killing, I venture to suggest that they would have made a very different reply.
The House would be making a grave error of judgment and a decision that the world outside would misinterpret if it were to allow the Bill to progress. Right hon. and hon. Members would be subjected to further lobbying on a massive scale, such as that which accompanied our recent


debates on similar issues. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that at the end of my life, it will be the Good Lord, and none other, that shall deliver me.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 101.

Division No.192]
[5.03 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Mitchell, Sir David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Mowlam, Marjorie


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Mullin, Chris


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
O'Neill, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Callaghan, Jim
Rost, Peter


Cartwright, John
Ruddock, Joan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Soley, Clive


Darling, Alistair
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Turner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
Walley, Joan


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hayward, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irving, Sir Charles
Mr. Max Madden and


McCrindle, Robert
Mr. Brian Sedgemore.


Mahon, Mrs Alice





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Anderson, Donald
Buckley, George J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benyon, W.
Canavan, Dennis


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cash, William


Blunkett, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bowis, John
Conway, Derek


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)





Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tarn
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Dixon, Don
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunn, Bob
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Roger


Eadie, Alexander
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Eastham, Ken
Monro, Sir Hector


Evennett, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forman, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mudd, David


Fry, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Gardiner, George
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorst, John
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pike, Peter L.


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Reid, Dr John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rowlands, Ted


Haselhurst, Alan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Holt, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howells, Geraint
Stern, Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Irvine, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thorne, Neil


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Walden, George


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wallace, James


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waller, Gary


Kennedy, Charles
Watts, John


Kilfedder, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Knapman, Roger
Wray, Jimmy


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)



Latham, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Jim Lester and


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Question acccordingly negatived

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Broadcasting Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; Amendments to Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 51, Schedule 4, Clauses 52 to 61, Schedule 5, Clauses 62 to 77, Schedule 6, Clauses 78 to 119, Schedule 7, Clause 120, Schedule 8, Clause 121, Schedules 9 and 10, Clauses 122 to 128, Schedule 11, Clauses 129 to 137, Schedule 12, Clauses 138 to 148, Schedule 13, Clauses 149 to 164, Schedule 14, Clauses 165 to 167, Schedule 15, Clauses 168 to 181, Schedules 16 and 17 and Clause 182; and new Schedules.—[Mr. Mellor.]

New Clause 22

AUDIENCE RESEARCH BY WELSH AUTHORITY

'.—(1) The Welsh Authority shall make arrangements for ascertaining—

(a) the state of public opinion concerning programmes broadcast on S4C;
(b) any effects of such programmes on the attitudes or behaviour of persons who watch them; and
(c) the types of programme that members of the public would like to be broadcast on S4C.

(2) Those arrangements shall—

(a) secure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, any research undertaken in pursuance of the arrange-ments is undertaken by persons who are neither members nor employees of the Welsh Authority; and
(b) include provision for full consideration by the Authority of the results of any such research.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 15, in clause 34, page 29, line 23, after 'licence', insert `(i)'.
No. 16, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
'(ii) in relation to a regional Channel 3 licence granted for an area which includes all or any part of Wales, programme schedules for programmes to be broadcast on S4C; and'.
No. 17, in clause 52, page 44, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
`(3) The Welsh Authority shall secure—
(a) that during any period allocated by them to the broadcasting of a programme not in Welsh, the programme broadcast by them on S4C is normally the same as the programme (or one of the programmes) being broadcast on Channel 4 during that period; and, so far as reasonably practicable, that the re-scheduling of Channel 4 programmes for broadcasting on S4C shall be compatible with the scheduling of those programmes for broadcasting on Channels 4; but this subsection shall not be taken to require—

(i) the simultaneous broadcasting of any programme on both Channel 4 and S4C;
(ii) the broadcasting by the Welsh Authority of any advertisement broadcast on Channel 4;


(b) that there shall be appropriate advance publicity relating to the intended times of transmission of Welsh language programmes and of Channel 4 programmes on S4C.'.
No. 572, in clause 53, page 45, line 8, at end insert—
'(5) Where any programmes provided under subsection (3) each form part of a series of programmes, the Welsh Authority shall ensure that the intervals between those programmes when broadcast on S4C normally correspond to the intervals between them when broadcast on Channel 4.
(6) The Welsh Authority shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, advance notice of the programmes schedules for the programme to be broadcast on S4C.'.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a pont of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that it was not until lunchtime today that we had Mr. Speaker's final selection of amendments? I am complaining not about the amendments or the new clauses he selected, but simply the mechanics. We are faced with 736 amendments and 36 new clauses, and we have to get them into a form of which we can make use in the interests of a sensible debate. I understand that there is nothing novel in the procedure, but when a Bill attracts so many amendments perhaps the relevant authorities should consider whether it is possible to make the selection a little earlier so that they are available earlier to both sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Member's complaint, but Mr. Speaker is following the usual practice and procedure in such matters. I understand the difficulty when we have such a complicated Bill which requires many amendments. The hon. Member may feel that his complaint should be brought to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure, but until then I have no option but to follow the usual procedures.

Mr. Mellor: Since this is the first of a large number of amendments selected on Report, may I be permitted the indulgence of commending the work of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill? However long my time in this place, I do not expect to participate in a more positive or agreeable series of debates than those we had on the Broadcasting Bill. Every member of the Committee played a full and active role.
While I understand that some differences will still be revealed on Report, all hon. Members who participated can take some pride in the achievements of the Committee. The Bill has emerged with much wider acceptance for many of its key requirements than was the case before Committee stage, and that is a tribute to the work of the Standing Committee. I thank all hon. Members who participated for assisting me.
Although it is true that we have a formidable task in front of us, with some 700 amendments, to consider, of which more than 500 are Government amendments, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, those amendments reflect the hard work of the Committee and are a sign of the success of parliamentary procedures, not a criticism of them. As we debate the amendments I hope to demonstrate that I have sought to honour whole-heartedly commitments I made in Committee. We shall have the opportunity to consider all the issues in detail, and I shall now pass to the details.
New clause 22 honours an undertaking I gave in Committee to require Sianel 4 Cymru to engage in


audience research. It is modelled on clause 12, which places a similar requirement on the Independent Television Commission.
I express my particular appreciation of the work of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who raised matters relating to S4C. I hope that he considers it a tribute to his persuasiveness that the Government have come forward with a long raft of amendments on the issue, which should tidy up arrangements for S4C. I hope that we have now got them into good shape. I certainly believe them to be acceptable to S4C.
Of the long list of Government amendments, I would draw attention only to No. 263, which gives S4C more flexibility to show Channel 4 programmes which are not necessarily being broadcoast simultaneously to the rest of the country—in other words, to devise a special Channel 4 programme schedule for Wales. That particularly follows points made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and is our version of his amendment No. 17, which he may feel he does not now need to pursue.
I should like to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 572. We quite agree that Welsh viewers should be able to watch a series of Channel 4 programmes in the same orderly sequence in which they were shown originally to English and Scottish viewers on Channel 4, and that they should have reasonable notice of what S4C will broadcast, so that they are not misled by the Channel 4 schedules for England and Scotland. That amendment also has the full endorsement of those who run S4C, whose work I commended in Committee.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney tabled two other amendments in this group—amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I regard those as a logical extension of the provisions in clause 34 relating to cross-announcements. I accept the purpose and principle of the amendments, but, alas, I cannot accept them entirely as they stand, for drafting reasons. However, I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to have them redrafted and introduced in another place, if that is acceptable to him.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: First, I thank the Minister for the terms and the character in which he moved the new clause and for the support that he has given my amendments. Amendment No. 572 was drafted with his support and assistance.
I should like to set out the context of the amendments. S4C has been a success story within the remit that Parliament gave it some years ago. It was asked to provide a Welsh language station, and that is exactly what it is. It has helped to sponsor and promote talent, ability, imagination and development in Welsh language broadcasting. However, it was never meant to be a ghetto or an exclusive station, since many hours of programmes on S4C are in the English language. The arrangements and particularly the financing of S4C were tied very closely to the station carrying Channel 4 programmes. That is a fundamental condition of the system, and anyone who sought to change it would fundamentally undermine the agreements and arrangements that were made when S4C was established.
Nevertheless, developments have occurred which have made it necessary to build upon and develop the concept of S4C as a station primarily developed to offer Welsh

language programmes, but also carrying Channel 4's English programmes. However, we must develop that concept without breaking it. Since the inauguration of S4C, two developments have necessitated the amendments that I tabled and that the Minister has accepted in principle—and in one case, in practice.
First, Channel 4 has turned out to be much more popular than most people thought it would be, with the inevitable result that many people in Wales feel deprived because they cannot see Channel 4 programmes. Therefore, as we move into the 1990s it is essential that S4C takes fully into account that demand and pressure from a large number of people who view Channel 4 through S4C in Wales.
Secondly, as the new director-general, Stanley Geraint Jones, and his team have recognised, there will be growing commercial pressures in the 1990s on commercial television in general and on Channel 4 and on S4C and S4C will have to respond as it cannot afford to be a ghetto in its response to a large viewing public in Wales who do not understand the Welsh language and want to see Channel 4 programmes.
For those two reasons, I argued in Committee that those new pressures and the new context of the 1990s in which S4C will operate must be recognised in statute. That is why I pressed the arguments that are now contained in amendments Nos. 572, 15 and 16. I shall briefly outline the basis on which those amendments were tabled.
As one grows older in parliamentary terms, one's parliamentary posterity grows increasingly modest. I am now down to the thankful pleasure of having drafted an entire subsection of a major Government Bill that the Minister now accepts. I suppose that that is a form of parliamentary posterity, so long as, when my party comes to power, Ministers do not abolish the subsection which I have managed painstakingly to negotiate and which the Minister has accepted with great warmth and spirit. I am grateful to him for accepting amendment No. 572, which we and the Home Office helped to draft.
Amendment No. 572 is important, because it places an obligation upon S4C to schedule Channel 4 series and programmes in an orderly fashion. Frankly, that is where S4C has failed. If the aim of the 1980s was getting S4C off the ground, the aim of the 1990s is getting its scheduling accurate and sensible and coherent. A very popular series, "Golden Girls", was carried on Channel 4 and everyone eagerly looked forward to seeing it on S4C. Unfortunately, it was not scheduled in a consistent and coherent way. That has happened to a number of programmes.
I pay tribute to the Welsh advisory committee of the IBA, which repeatedly stressed to S4C that it was vital that there should be some consistency in scheduling Channel 4 programmes. In subsection (5) of amendment No. 572, we have tried to write in some statutory obligation on S4C to do just that.
Subsection (6) of our amendment—I say "ours" because the Government assisted in drafting it—seeks to ensure that S4C makes more effort to publicise Channel 4 programmes. Again, it is sometimes a matter of hunting for when a series or a serial will start as there may be a considerable gap between the beginning of a series on Channel 4 and the beginning of that series on S4C. There may be perfectly good reasons for that, but there must be consistency and coherence in the way in which S4C broadcasts Channel 4 series and serials.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle of amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which place upon the commercial television stations in Wales—HTV or any new franchise holder—the same obligation that will be placed on Channel 3 commercial stations to advertise, support and draw to the attention of its viewers what is shown on Channel 4. Therefore, it is absolutely logical that there should be such a statutory commitment. Recently, an agreement has been struck between HTV and S4C on advertising, but it is an agreement for only one year. I believe that it should be a statutory obligation, as it will be for other commercial television stations in regard to Channel 4.
I believe that the amendments are modest, useful and important to the way in which S4C will operate in future. It is looking forward to expanding in Swansea to reach out to its Welsh-speaking audience, but it must reach out increasingly to a large audience of those who could be described as Anglo-Welsh. We have had discussions in Committee, and I believe that we can raise the matter in the context of other amendments and new clauses, about how Anglo-Welsh broadcasting will fit in, and its role for the 1990s.
These are not necessarily the amendments on which to debate that fundamental issue, although they follow the same principle. Whether or not it applies in a commercial station, in BBC Wales or in the new broadcasting formats, such as cable—which we shall have great opportunities to discuss in the next two and a half days—at least the one station established by Parliament to fulfil a specific function—that is, S4C—will seek in the 1990s to reach out to the larger audience and nation that exist beyond the Welsh-speaking community. I am grateful to the Minister for responding so positively to the amendments.

Sir Giles Shaw: I do not want to detain my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in pressing the provision into the Bill, as it is an excellent amendment. I suspect that his predecessor had correspondence on audience research for television. I must declare my interest as chairman of the Broadcasting Audience Research Bureau, which was set up under the Annan committee, and which comprises the BBC and ITV. Shortly, it will comprise the satellite companies as well.
No statutory requirement is laid on individual companies within the ITV network to proceed with research of the kind introduced by the new clause. The reason for that is that research is to be regarded as a matter for the company itself and not as a matter laid down by the authorities. However, my hon. and learned Friend will be aware of a small problem that occurs when the franchises of individual companies—and, therefore, of the Independent Television Association as a whole—come up for renewal. There is a gap between the statutory continuity to research, and the separate commercial decisions which companies take in their own right and collectively as the ITA to continue with research.
I commend the principle of the new clause. It seeks to establish on a statutory basis that the Welsh authority has a right to see that research is carried out, although that is more in terms of audience opinion than in measuring the number of homes or the intensity of viewing. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware how one cannot be divorced from the other if one wants to establish the pulling power

of a programme. Will my hon. and learned Friend briefly take note that the obligation to research is uniquely advantageous to S4C? I commend the idea on a wider scale, if my hon. and learned Friend is considering that.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I agree with the Minister's remarks. Although about half a dozen issues separate the Opposition and the Government because of their deeply felt views, there is no division on party lines on the vast majority of the Bill. It was to the credit of the Committee that the debate there was always conducted without rancour and in a positive spirit. I am glad that the Minister was able to accept many suggestions, both from the Opposition and from his own Back Benchers. As he rightly said, most of the amendments in this group concern matters that he agreed to look at again, and that is welcome.
I have few comments to make on the group, although I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that the requirement to ascertain public opinion, which the new clause will lay on S4C, might well be applied to other parts of the television network.
I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney ( Mr.Rowlands) for his work in Committee and on Report in improving the service offered by S4C. He was right to pay a strong tribute to Mr. Stanley Geraint Jones, the new director-general, and to say that many of the difficulties that S4C had at first are now being tackled. I have no doubt that he will be a credit to Wales and to the service that the channel provides. Some of us who come from another part of the United Kingdom look with envy at what S4C has done in Wales. Perhaps we can learn from its experience. The Opposition can have no quarrel with the group of amendments; it is better to save our fire for the issues that divide us rather than to take up further time on matters that unite us.

Mr. Mellor: I want to respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). A research obligation is placed on other parts of the system as well as on S4C. Although we obviously do not think that it is our task to delineate further what that obligation might be, I am sure that it will lead to the continuation of research work such as that over which my hon. Friend rightly presides with BARB.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF RECORDINGS

`.—(l) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath laid by a constable that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed by any person in respect of a programme included in a programme service, he may make an order authorising any constable to require that person—

(a) to produce to the constable a visual or sound recording of any matter included in that programme, if and so far as that person is able to do so; and
(b) on the production of such a recording, to afford the constable an opportunity of causing a copy of it to be made.

(2) An order made under this section shall describe the programme to which it relates in a manner sufficient to enable that programme to be identified.

(3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement of a constable made by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.

(4) No order shall be made under this section in respect of any recording in respect of which a warrant could be granted under any of the following provisions, namely—

(a) section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959;
(b) section 24 of the Public Order Act 1986; and
(c) Article 14 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

(5) In the application of subsection (1) to England and Wales "relevant offence" means an offence under—

(a) section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; or
(b) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986.

(6) In the application of subsection (1) to Scotland—

(a) "relevant offence" means an offence under—

(i) section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, or
(ii) section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986;

(b) the reference to a justice of the peace shall include a reference to the sheriff; and

(c) for the reference to information on oath there shall be substituted a reference to evidence on oath.

(7) In the application of subsection (1) to Northern Ireland—

(a) "relevant offence" means an offence under Article 12 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987;
(b) for the reference to a justice of the peace there shall be substituted a reference to a resident magistrate; and
(c) for the reference to information on oath laid by a constable there shall be substituted a reference to a complaint on oath made by a constable.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618, 231, 619, 421, 620 to 622, 234, 623 to 626, 639 to 640, 297 to 299 and 652.

Mr. Mellor: The new clause is important because it fulfils my commitment in Committee on 6 March to recast the provisions in the Bill on police powers to obtain copies of recordings. As the House will see, it involves the deletion in their entirety of clauses 153, 154 and 155 and the substitution of new clause 24. The effect is that, although the police will still have the powers they need to enforce the provisions in this part, the powers will be subject to substantial safeguards. We took heed of the complaints about fishing expeditions, and those dangers have now been fully removed from the arrangements. I shall not go further into the matter, as we had a thorough debate in Committee. I have honoured almost to the letter my commitments in Committee.
Many Government amendments are associated with the new clause. Government amendments Nos. 615 to 618 are intended to clarify the powers of the Independent Television Commission relating to the production of recordings and transcripts by licensees. Government amendment No. 231 relates to a matter which arose in Committee and which should be beyond doubt. It makes it clear that, in exercising its duties under the Act, the ITC will not be required to preview programmes.
Government amendments Nos. 619 to 622 make arrangements for radio licensees to keep recordings of their broadcasts and to produce them to the Radio Authority on request. They mirror the clarificatory amendments to the television provisions.
Government amendment No. 421 reflects my undertak-ing in Committee. It is a substantive amendment, as there will no longer be a need to retain copies of programmes for 90 days, and they will need to be kept only for 42 days. That will considerably assist the broadcasting organisations. Government amendment No. 234 follows a similar amendment to the television provisions in the Bill. It makes it clear that the Radio Authority will be under no obligation to preview programmes.
Government amendments Nos. 623 to 626 deal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. They again deal with the point about 42 rather than 90 days. Government amendments Nos. 635 and 636 reduce the time limit for the submission of complaints about programmes to three weeks to dovetail with the 42-day requirement, the idea being that complaints would be received within 21 days which would allow the Broadcasting Standards Council to act on those complaints within the 42 days for the retention of programmes.
Government amendments Nos. 637 and 638 remove from the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Council complaints that are the subject of legal proceedings or in which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Government amendment No. 639 follows a further committee undertaking which focuses more sharply the powers of the BSC relating to information it is able to obtain from broadcasters. It is a narrowing of what might have been seen as a too wide provision. Government amendment No. 640 is a drafting amendment.
I hope that the new clause and the amendments will be seen as a sensible acceptance of various points arising from our Committee deliberations.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for having tabled the amendments and the new clause as a result of our debates in Committee. I am especially pleased that, as he said in Committee, he has dropped from the Bill the objectionable provisions which would have allowed fishing expeditions by police looking for material that might have been thought to have contravened any of the relevant Acts. Because of a lack of fleetness of foot in Committee, the provisions were not deleted at that time, so we have had to do so on Report. None the less, the proposal is entirely welcome. The members of the Committee were at one in believing that certain safeguards were needed but felt that it was simply not necessary to give the police powers as wide as those originally proposed.
The other amendments in the group are entirely in accord with the conclusion that we reached in Committee, and we shall therefore not seek to oppose them or to prolong the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

FUNCTIONS EXERCISABLE BY IBA BEFORE TRANSFER DATE IN CONNECTION WITH LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTING

`.—(1) It shall be the duty of the IBA to prepare before the transfer date, in the case of each relevant programme contractor, a contract which—

(a) is expressed to be made between the nominated company and the contractor; and
(b) is to come into force in accordance with subsection (3) at such time (if any) as the contractor becomes the holder of a local licence by virtue of paragraph 1(1) in Part IV of Schedule 9 to this Act; and
(c) makes provision for and in connection with the transmission by the nominated company, as from any such time, of the programmes included in the local service provided by the contractor (as the holder of such a licence).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IBA shall, after consultation with all the relevant programme contractors, draw up a number of different standard forms of contract, and each contract prepared by them under that subsection shall be in such one of those forms as they may determine after consultation with the relevant programme contractor concerned.

(3) Any contract prepared under subsection (1) shall by virtue of this subsection come into force, as a contract between the nominated company and the relevant programme contractor concerned, at any such time as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection and (subject to the provisions of the contract) shall continue in force for such period as is specified in it, being a period expiring not later than 31st December 1994.

(4) If—

(a) any contract prepared under subsection (1) has not yet come into force, and
(b) the nominated company and the relevant programme contractor concerned agree that it would be more appropriate for them to be parties to a contract which is in one of the other forms of contract drawn up as mentioned in subsection (2), and
(c) the nominated company prepares such a contract as is mentioned in subsection (1) which is in that other form,

subsection (3) shall have effect in relation to that contract as if it had been prepared by the IBA under subsection (1) (and accordingly shall not have effect in relation to the contract referred to in paragraph (a) above).

(5) The IBA shall be deemed to have had power to impose such requirements as have been imposed by them on the various local sound programme contractors with respect to the making of payments to the IBA for the purpose of enabling reductions to be made in relevant charges; and in this subsection "relevant charges" means charges made by the nominated company in connection with the transmission, during the period beginning with the transfer date and ending with 31st December 1994, of programmes which are included in local services falling within any description of such services determined by the IBA.

(6) The IBA shall have power, with the approval of the Secretary of State—

(a) to dispose of any relevant transmitting equipment to a relevant programme contractor; and
(b) to do so for such consideration as they may determine (whether or not it represents the market value of the equipment).

(7) In this section—

"local licence" and "local service" have the same meaning as in Part III of this Act;
"local sound programme contractor" means a person who is a programme contractor by virtue of a contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts;
"relevant programme contractor" means the pro-gramme contractor under a contract which, if effective immediately before the transfer date, would be a contract to which paragraph 2(1) in Part III of Schedule 9 applied;

"relevant transmitting equipment" means equipment which has been used by the IBA in connection with the transmission of local sound broadcasts;
and expressions used in this section which are also used in the Broadcasting Act 1981 have the same meaning as in that Act.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 482.

Mr. Mellor: The new clause completes the transitional arrangements for independent radio by dealing with the transmission aspects. It gives effect to arrangements that have been agreed by the Home Office, the IBA arid the Association of Independent Radio Contractors. It is entirely acceptable to those organisations and I hope, therefore, to the rest of us.
New clause 29 allows the IBA to sell transmission equipment at less than market value to radio companies as part of the arrangements for the transition to the new radio regime. It is part of the cushioning process that most hon. Members seek.
Amendment No. 482 would ensure that any equipment disposed of in that way was not caught by the scheme for the division of the IBA's three successors.

Mr. Corbett: I agree with everything that the Minister said about the Committee stage. We welcome the new clause, which the Minister has introduced to fulfil the undertakings that he gave in our earlier discussions.
Does he envisage that there are likely to be any redundancies as a result of the changes? Has he had any discussions that have led him to a view about whether any redundancies will be voluntary or compulsory? If redundancies are expected as a result of the change in the arrangements, will he encourage the Radio Authority, and, where necessary, the IBA, to give other broadcasting organisations first refusal of the skills of any of the personnel whose jobs disappear?
I know that the Minister accepts that, by and large, the staff are highly skilled. Many of them have long years of experience and could be of great value to other parts of the broadcasting system. It would be a great shame if we allowed their skills to be blown away. I am sure that none of the parties that are likely to be concerned in the change object to the proposal, but perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to draw my remarks to the attention of those concerned.

Mr. Mellor: I know of no reason for any redundancies flowing from the new clause. The privatisation of the IBA transmission system is proceeding well, with full co-operation from all concerned and in a very open spirit. As far as I am aware, there should be no radio redundancies as a result. I believe that, if there were a need for any redundancies in the system as a whole—radio and television—they would be voluntary. As I said, I have no reason to think that the change is proceeding in anything other than a good spirit on the part of all concerned.
I echo what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said about the quality of the technicians and other staff whom the IBA employs. They have an outstanding record and I believe that they will work extremely well under the new arrangements. Dr. Forrest, the present head of the IBA transmission side,


who has been made the chief executive-designate of the new company, warmly endorses the arrangements, which he believes will open the way to an extremely good future for him and his colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

A NATIONAL NETWORK

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to secure that Channel 3 licence holders operate a network arrangement for the commissioning and scheduling of sufficient programmes from a regional Channel 3 service to be included simultaneously in each of the Channel 3 services.

(2) A Channel 3 licence may include any conditions that the Commission consider appropriate to carry out their duty under subsection (1) above.

(3) The Commission may at any time prior to or after the granting of licences to provide a regional Channel 3 service impose a network arrangement on the Channel 3 licence holders if they deem it necessary to do so.

(4) A network arrangement made by the Channel 3 licence holders or imposed by the Commission shall not be enforced unless the number of hours of programmes commissioned and scheduled from each Channel 3 service are in proportion to the audience of that service and potentially cover all types of programmes.

(5) A Channel 3 licence holder may appeal to the Commission if the licence holder believes that the operation of a network arrangement does not meet the conditions imposed by subsection (4) above; and the Commission shall do everything it can to secure that the conditions are met.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take the following:

New Clause 15

BUYING AND SELLING OF PROGRAMMES BY LICENCE HOLDERS—

`—(1) The Commission may give directions to any licence holder requiring him to supply to another licence holder for inclusion in any comparable programme of his any item supplied or originated by the first Commission and the licences between the licence holder and the various licence holders shall contain all such provisions as the Commission think necessary or expedient for ensuring—

(a) that each licence holder will take all reasonable steps to put himself in a position to comply with any directions which may be given to him under this subsection and, when any such directions have been given to him, to enable the other licence holder to include the item to which the directions relate in any comparable programme of his; and
(b) that if financial and other arrangements for the supply of any item in respect of which directions have been given under this subsection are not agreed between the two licence holders, or when so agreed do not receive the approval of the Commission required by virtue of subsection (2), the item will be supplied in accordance with such financial and other arrangements as may be determined by the Commission.

(2) The contracts between the Commission and the various licence holders shall provide that, where items to be included in the programmes of a licence holder are not originated by that licence holder, the financial and other arrangements between the licence holder and the supplier shall require the approval of the Commission—

(a) in all cases where the supplier is another licence holder and
(b) in such other cases as the Commission may from time to time direct;
and directions given for the purposes of this subsection may apply to a licence holder generally or may be different for different licence holders.

(3) For the purposes of this section two programmes shall be regarded as being comparable if either—

(a) both are television programmes, or
(b) both are local sound broadcasts.'.

New Clause 33

NETWORKING

'(1) The Commission may authorise agreements made by holders of regional Channel 3 licences for the purpose of securing co-ordination in the production, supply and scheduling of programmes for regional Channel 3 services.

(2) Any authorisation under this section shall be given by an instrument, published in such manner as the Commission consider appropriate, specifying—

(a) the name of every person party to the agreement, and
(b) such particulars of the agreement as they consider it appropriate to publish,
and may be given for such period as the Commission may specify in that instrument.

(3) The Commission, after affording the parties to an authorised agreement reasonable opportunity of making representations to them, may by instrument published in like manner revoke the authorisation given to that agreement under this section.'.

Amendment No. 705, in clause 16, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
'(dd) that a sufficient proportion of the programmes so included are related, by their source or otherwise, to arrangements authorised by the Commission under section [Networking] for securing co-ordination in the production, supply and scheduling of program-mes for regional Channel 3 services.'

Mr. Maclennan: The need for a network was discussed extensively in Committee but, although hon. Members on both sides acknowledged the importance of having an agreement, the Bill makes no provision for such a requirement to be underpinned in statute; indeed, it does not provide for such an arrangement at all.
The importance of a network was perhaps best summed up by TV South which said:
Each constituent part of ITV would be the weaker without a network. The absence of a network, far from strengthening regionalism in television, would seriously weaken it, by undermining the commercial performance of each individual company, as a result of weaker schedules and reduced audiences. Each company would have greater freedom, but it would be the restricted freedom of the poor. Regional programmes would be marginalised by becoming a low cost ingredient.
The lack of a network would undoubtedly reduce viewer choice. It would harm companies financially and put off advertisers.
Although the need for a network has been acknowledged by us all, there is still some dispute about what type of arrangement we should have and about whether we should have a statutory fallback.
The existing ITV companies are in the throes of discussing a new arrangement that would divide the companies into programme makers and programme buyers. The large and medium-sized companies have all opted to be programme makers. That leaves about five companies that would be programme buyers. In return for giving up their theoretical automatic right to be part of the network, the five non-producers will get discounts on the programmes that they buy. The advantage of such a system is that it could be argued that the smaller companies are being subsidised by the larger ones, especially as their access to the network—although recently improved—is still negligible. But even if such an arrangement were popular with all the companies—and the fact that a final arrangement is still to be worked out shows that substantial problems may remain to be overcome—the question remains whether such an arrangement is the best for a regional television system, which is what Channel 3 is intended to be.
It is undoubtedly true that a few programme makers based on a couple of production sites would constitute a more efficient way of making programmes but arrange-ments would negate the purpose of Channel 3, which is to provide a showcase of regional talent producing locally-made programmes not just for the area in which they are made but for the whole country.
The production of programmes for the network not only improves standards because it means that local producers have to compete with the best from the major companies; it increases employment, directly and indirectly, if effective use of the region is made.
New clause 1 would require that the number of programmes networked from any region should be proportionate to the local audience of the company. That would be a fair and effective way of ensuring that the smaller companies were not excluded by a cabal of the major companies, especially as the current cabal owes a good deal to its historical importance as well as to its financial clout. Unless there is some protection for the smaller companies, the fact that the programme makers and sellers are the same could act against their interests.
Even if the Government are reluctant to impose anything so regulatory on the companies, it is important that there should be a statutory power for a network arrangement to be imposed if, following the issue of new franchises or takeovers of the companies that have received franchises, there is a breakdown in the arrangements. The commission requires powers to impose an arrangement. The IBA has said that it would welcome such arrangements—certainly during the transitional period.
At the very least, I seek a commitment from the Government to allow a statutory safeguard, without which the concept of regional television may prove difficult to maintain. I look forward to the Minister of State giving a progress report, at least on the state of the negotiations, and hearing what he considers to be the best way to overcome the undoubted problems that remain, a conclusion not having been arrived at.

Mr. John Greenway: New clause 33 authorises rather than imposes a network on the Channel

3 licensees and puts on the licensees an obligation to reach agreement. I looked with care at new clauses 1 and 15, which hark back to the present arrangements whereby the IBA effectively controls the schedule. A fundamental difference of view emerged in Committee. Conservative Members wish to see a free market in the provision of programmes, which does not happen now with IBA control of the schedule, and independent television companies are anxious that that should come about. The problem is that, although the Bill does not require a network to exist, a 15-region television system will not work unless there is some kind of network.
There is no doubt that a network will exist, whether or not we provide for it in legislation; however, it must be right that the financial plans of bidders are crucial to the allocation process and that they are not just a shot in the dark, which is what they would be if bidders did not know how much they might have to invest in and/or pay for network supply. That must be a worry, bearing in mind how little programming each contractor provides now or is likely to provide on his own and how much advertising revenue is generated out of the network schedule. Also, ITC will not be able to vary the financial commitments of contractors.
I am concerned also that some smaller companies may face difficulties in an open market in which their poor bargaining position could mean that they were no longer subsidised, as is now the case, and they might be forced to pay a premium for the network schedule, with new financial constraints on contractors. Every ounce of flesh will be worth getting. Commitments to the Treasury will be entered into and there is a potential unforeseen increase in costs. That could create early difficulties and pressures which might in themselves lead to a decline in regional programming commitments, which we are all anxious to see maintained.
Therefore, the ITC needs a power to approve and oversee a networking arrangement before licences are advertised so that applicants fully understand precisely what their obligations will be for each region. That is why in amendment No. 705 I have suggested that there should be a requirement at the application stage for each bidder to agree to take part in the network arrangement. As everyone who has looked at the matter knows, the current ITV companies are working towards an agreement on a network. For that reason, it may be premature for the House to reach a decision on this matter this evening. In Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recognised that an important issue is to be addressed but that the ITV companies should be given adequate time to reach agreement.

Mr. Corbett: I understand amendment No. 705, but what will happen if the present ITV companies are unable to reach a detailed agreement on networking before the ITC advertises new licences?

Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 705 refers to new clause 33. The two must be taken together. There is a difference of view. Conservative Members believe that there should be the authorisation of a network by the ITC, not the imposition of it, so that the free market can continue.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider my ideas and suggestions. I certainly hope that the House will reject new clauses 1 and 15 because they simply hark back to the present arrangement, which nobody wants.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is correct to say that the Committee was divided on whether a free market or regulation would secure proper networking arrangements for the new ITV service. However, the Committee was united on the need for a networking service on the ITV channels. That would offer a range of benefits, particularly for smaller regional ITV companies. For example, smaller companies could not begin to afford the wide range of quality programmes that are available to them through the network. They could not afford to produce such programmes on their own or to offer access to them. A network gives the opportunity to commission or produce programmes for sale across the network, which companies would otherwise not consider commissioning or producing on their own.
A good example is the Scottish programme "Scotsport", which is produced by STV. Other Scottish regional companies could not possibly afford to match the coverage that is given by STV or, for that matter, BBC Scotland, so they rely on a network for their viewers to gain access to "Scotsport" through the network, and enjoy a top sports programme. The quality of "Scotsport" is enhanced by the existence of the network, because, if STV produced it only for transmission within the transmission area, there would be far smaller audiences, fewer advertisers and less justification for expenditure on the quality of the programme. Everyone would agree that networking is essential, but it is a matter of how we can best secure networking for programmes across the ITV companies.
It is important that we regard television not just as entertainment or a cultural service but as an industry that brings jobs to regions that have been unemployment black spots for far too long. In the Bill there is far too little protection for regionally based ITV companies with film production facilities within their region. For example, clause 15(3) requires applicants, if the commission requires, to show that they have facilities in their area for the provision of the programme requirements set out in clause 16(2). Clause 16(2) requires that a proportion of regional programmes should be made within the particular area of a region.
There was a later concession by the Minister of State that regional news programmes would have to be of high quality, just as national news programmes are of high quality. Obviously, that has a knock-on effect for production facilities in regions. That is welcome and helps to ensure that some facilities will remain within different regions of the ITV network, but it does not go far enough to secure the full-scale production requirements that would be capable of producing high-quality programmes across the range of programme types.
People in the regions want to produce programmes that are not just good local news magazines and not just occasional good regional programmes such as the Gaelic programme on Grampian Television, "Crann Tara", which is purely for local consumption. We want to produce within the regions top-rate programmes across

the whole range of programmes for sale across the network. I refer to programmes such as the Scottish soap "Take the High Road", STV's own production of "The Steamie", Channel 4's production of "Bread and Roses" and the BBC's production of "Tutti-Frutti".
The production facilities required to make programmes such as that are not guaranteed in the Bill and could be under threat should some of the smaller regional companies be taken over by their larger sister companies in the ITV network. None of those production facilities will survive if we do not have an effective network that allows programmes to be sold across the whole network to the various ITV companies.
Under the Government's proposals, there could be a gap in effective networking arrangements for the ITV companies. That gap could be sufficient, if it lasted for only a year or two, to allow many production facilities that now exist in the regions to disappear. Should they disappear, they will not return, and we would find ourselves with the situation about which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) warned, with production centred in a handful of regional companies selling their productions to the other regional companies.
That is not a development that we want to see. I hope that the Minister will take on board the danger of production facilities in the regions being at risk and that included in the Bill will be provision for effective networking arrangements giving adequate protection for regional companies and production facilities.

6 pm

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Because all the regions other than Northern Ireland were represented on the Committee, I am anxious to explain that a networking operation is essential to television in Ulster. As has been said, there is a danger that local television stations will be reduced simply to putting out news and current affairs programmes. We require, particularly in Northern Ireland, a wide range of programmes that are locally produced.
Ulster Television is at present the smallest of the ITV companies. It is essential that we have networking to ensure that international and other programmes are screened in Northern Ireland, for we must have a wide range of television programmes. In view of the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we have a regional television company that can advance the regional view. I support the idea of provision for networking in the ITV operation so as to protect local companies.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am fascinated by the prospect of the Minister's reply, for I cannot imagine what he will say in answer to such logical arguments about networking. It seems impossible that an ITV or Channel 3—call it what we may—network could work without some provision for networking.
If the Minister intends to reject that proposition, he must explain how anybody will be able to formulate a rational bid in the auction bid situation without knowing what the costs of production will be and how they will be spread around the system in forms of networking. It will be impossible to make financial predictions unless companies know in advance what the system will be.
What would happen if there were no networking system as proposed by the three amendments, the best of which is


the Labour proposal? Would we not be in the situation at the start of the ITV network of having a stand-up, knock-down game of bluff among the companies, each vetoing the others' products until, in the end, by a process of financial attrition, they were forced to come to a networking arrangement?

Sir Giles Shaw: The Minister should need no further persuasion that it is essential to have an effective networking operation to sustain a regional network of 15 television companies. That must be common ground among all who wish to see a flourishing television system operating for Channel 3 services.
Equally, I have sympathy with the view that it would not be suitable for the Independent Television Commission to become a dogmatic fat controller, as it were, determining on which branch lines the schedules should be run. We have evolved over the past 10 years or more an effective networking service that has provided a significant variety, but possibly a lack of opportunity, to some companies that have been knocking at the door of admission to the network arrangements.
So I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in seeking a permissive statement to the effect that a network should be, or may be, introduced by the ITC but that it should not become the bedrock of the system under control from the centre. By that means, a stifling bureaucracy would be apparent, some of the consequences of which would be a stifling of regional initiative.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) has in Ulster Television one of the finest examples of a company that has been able to sustain, under difficult conditions, a first-class range of programming that would have been driven into the bankruptcy court long ago without adequate networking material being made available.

Mr. Corbett: I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that matters connected with Northern Ireland were not altogether forgotten in Committee. Indeed, I recall a spirited debate when we were attempting to get the Home Office to fall in line with what the Northern Ireland Office was doing by way of initiatives to encourage the speaking of Irish Gaelic. Whether that pleased the hon. Gentleman I do not know.
There is probably general agreement in the House not just about the desirability of having a networking arrangement but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, about the critical need for such an arrangement if there is to be sensible bidding for the new Channel 3 licences.
I assure the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) that it is not a question of anybody on the Opposition Benches or of Conservative Members wanting the ITC to turn into what he described as a fat controller of schedules. The days when it was felt that we needed the IBA or a successor body to crawl over every schedule minute by minute, day by day, week by week has long since passed, if for no other reason than that the broadcasters know more about what they are doing than when the system was introduced.
That said, and given the agreement among hon. Members about the need for a networking arrangement, it is curious that the Bill does not make provision for that, mostly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave. It is claimed that the free market

will sort it out, that common sense will prevail and that all will fall into place. I expect that to be the case—because of the collective interest in the matter—but it may no 't turn out to be the case. In any event, the parties to any networking arrangements that now exist may not in all cases be the same parties after the new Channel 3 licences have been awarded.
The largest company of the present ITV companies makes fewer than 30 out of every 100 of its programmes, whereas the smallest makes only five out of every 100. I am not complaining about that, simply showing the width of interest in the network. I suppose in a sense that the smaller the station, the more important is the network to it, so that it is better able to gain an audience in its region than it could hope to attract on the back of its own programming.
The Independent Television Companies Association sees the main justification of networking as enabling 15 regional companies to function as a single, nationwide rival to the BBC. Some of us take the view that the strength of the ITV system lies, or should lie, in the regions and that there should be more, rather than less, programmes made and shown in the regions and networked so that region may speak unto region. I understand the point that the ITA makes.
We now begin to part company. The Opposition take the view that the ITC should not simply have powers to okay a networking arrangement which may, and probably will, be entered into. It should have powers, in the absence of agreement, to ensure that there is such an arrangement which could be open to later amendment. I understand that at present there is a plan but no agreement. The plan is this: the big five have proposed that they should rnake all the programmes for the network and that the smaller 10 should cough up and show them. That is not acceptable to the middle five, and rightly so. They want to make some programmes for the network. To confine the making of network programmes to the present big five would not be good for the rest of the network. In effect, it would create first and second class programme makers. Inevitably the bulk of them would be made in London and the south-east. It would also mean that fewer true regional programmes—that is programmes not just from the regions but about the regions—would be made which could be networked.
It is important that the ITC has powers in the Bill to encourage and achieve a sensible networking arrangement. The Government have said that they want that and, as the ITA has said, the Bill should reflect those wishes. The IBA makes the point that the quality and range of network programmes would suffer if each of the Channel 3 companies had to supply all its own programmes. No one proposes that each, any or all of the Channel 3 companies would have to supply all its programmes. As we have agreed, the network is vital to the whole system. Certainly the network is vital to the more expensive programmes such as costume and other drama, current affairs, documentaries and comedy, some of which, although in my view not enough, reflect the realities of life outside the capital where far too much is already centred.
Of course, the ITC will not be a broadcaster in the same way as the IBA and it will not crawl all over the programme schedules and networking arrangements. However, it needs powers to ensure that a system is in place which guarantees both quality programming and —a point with which the Minister will agree—a


networking agreement which is fair and open. The networking arrangements that we had in the past would not pass the tests of fairness and openness for all the reasons that we understand and some that we shall never understand.
With regard to the Government's "exceptional circumstances" and the so-called quality test, the ITC will want to know about networking to guard against over ambitious claims by bidders. The IBA has proposed that provision be made in the Bill for a transitional network to be put in place from January 1993—the beginning of the new Channel 3 licences—for two years, or less if the licensees and the ITC have agreed an arrangement in keeping with the programme promises of the applicants. As the IBA argues, that is important as ITC adjusts to the new circumstances of Channel 3 and the other changes that are to come throughout broadcasting—the Minister and his supporters would probably prefer to call it the broadcasting market but we have not come that far yet. The Minister and, indeed, the Government will accept many of those arguments, especially the argument about not only the importance of but the critical need for a network arrangement to be clear, in place and agreed to help the ITC in the allocation of the new Channel 3 licences. I hope that the Government are persuaded that it is right to turn those ambitions into words in the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: There is no great division between us on these matters. I certainly believe that Channel 3 could not possibly fulfil its remit or win the audience share that it will need to win to be financially viable unless there is a networking arrangement. There is no disagreement on that. The difficulty pertinently expressed, as so often, by my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is how we can best create a networking arrangement. For far too long the ITV system depended on a networking arrangement that emerged in the 1950s as a defence mechanism against arguments that the ITV system could not sustain a national programme service. The big five arose and did not retire from the scene anything like quickly enough.
The consequence of centring the arrangements on the big five was an increasing awareness both within the system and outside it that the big five were an unfair cartel. Many of the views expressed in the debates reflected the fetid atmosphere of that cartel, which has long outlived its useful purpose. Apart from any other reason, the big five are no longer the biggest five. That made the whole arrangement even less relevant. It was obvious that some companies could put programmes on the network because of their position within the magic circle that would not have been included if they had been suggested by other companies whose rather better product was kept out. That raised competition issues.
The companies themselves are aware of the deficiencies in the present networking arrangements and propose to make changes. The changes are still in the process of negotiation, but they are based on a volunteer principle of opting in or opting out. I understand that about 10 companies wish to opt in and become to some extent

programme makers. Five companies are happy to be programme receivers, subject to their regional obligations. That is how matters stand at present.
Several good points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to the need for local production facilities. He will be aware that in the Bill we have strengthened the regional requirements. As a result of changes that we signalled in Committee—we shall come to the amendments later—we shall require that any applicants for a regional franchise should state what programme-making facilities they propose to provide in the region so that everyone knows where he stands.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) mentioned Ulster Television. I have had meetings with Brum Henderson and his team. They know that we are committed to Ulster Television and a television franchise for Ulster. It is not a matter for me, but it would probably mean the continuation of Ulster Television. It will depend on the decision to be taken on the allocation of franchises. Clearly particular care must be taken in scrutinising applications for the Ulster franchise because of the need for programming that is sensitive to the needs of both communities. Personally, I believe that Ulster Television has done a good job, but clearly it could not exist if it did not receive many good programmes from elsewhere in the system.
So far so good. The difficulty comes when we turn to the issue of how to arrive at a networking arrangement. The Opposition new clause in effect proposes that the ITC should be a programme-scheduling supremo for all its licensees. No licensee would be able to draw up a programme schedule or enter into a contract to acquire a programme without first clearing it with the ITC. That gives the ITC a greater and more interventionist role in these matters than either the present IBA or the Cable Television Authority.
I understand that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is using the new clause quite properly to discuss the issues. I suspect and hope that he is not wedded to the arrangements that he proposes, which would be excessively interventionist or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, excessively bureaucratic.
The Government have also had to reconsider their view. Our view is that in the end the matter must turn on sensible arrangements between the programme companies. After all, they have everything to gain from sensible networking arrangements and everything to lose if there is not a proper network. It is they who would be unable to sustain a popular national channel, which Channel 3 must be. The responsibility for networking should be placed firmly on the programme companies, but that does not answer the key question of the transition. That is the point rightly emphasised by various hon. Members. Plainly the ITC has the difficult but vital role of finding which pegs to fit into which holes. Obviously the holes in the system will be of different sizes, reflecting the inevitable difference of size between franchises.
The issue for us to decide is whether there should be transitional arrangements, and what they should be—whether the ITC can rely just on the emergence from present discussions of a successful new networking arrangement or whether it should have the right to determine those matters, or have them determined by others, for a transitional period, perhaps two years into the new licence, so that everybody knows where they stand


and start off from a sensible position from which they might move as a result of discussions and agreements. We should certainly shoot ourselves in the foot if we allowed to be made a new networking arrangement that became as difficult to shift as the previous one, which has long outlived its usefulness.
We acknowledge that Channel 3 licensees must be given an idea of how the network is likely to shape up. That is why we shall require the ITC to issue illustrative guidelines on programme types, and expect them to include within that guide a model network scheme. Moreover, the ITC will be able to ensure that any network arrangement subsequently agreed by Channel 3 does not discriminate against the smaller licensees through is powers, under clause 2, to ensure fair and effective competition. Those are important provisions already contained in the Bill. The key issue is whether the ITC should, in effect, have a statutory power to approve networking arrangements and should it be able to acquire a transitional networking arrangement to which it would work and expect the new licensees to work.
It has been possible for my colleagues and I to resolve most of the matters left outstanding, the loose ends left untied, in Committee. The fruits of that work will be obvious to those who have looked at the Government amendments. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to resolve all the problems. One that remains the subject of discussion with colleagues is the precise shape of the transitional arrangements. I am firmly of the view that there must be transitional arrangements. That is an important point that might influence the view of those who have to decide whether to press the new clauses to a vote. I hope that they will feel that they do not need to, first, because of what I have said about the illustrative guidelines and other arrangements that already exist, and, secondly, because it is a live issue. The illustrative guidelines and other arrangements will give the ITC the power to give would-be franchise holders a clear steer.
The issue of transitional arrangements turns on whether or not they should be for the ITC or the Office of Fair Trading—bearing in mind that it is essentially a competition matter—and what the balance should be between the fair trading and competition aspects of the matter and the ITC. Hon. Members will recognise, particularly those who study such matters with care, as most present do, that one of the difficult issues of detail with which we have had to deal is how far the ITC, as the regulator, should regulate competition issues and at what point it should hand over to the OFT and those charged with the responsibility for more broadly based jurisdiction over competition issues. I am sorry that I am not in a position to resolve those matters conclusively this afternoon, but there is a strong case for transitional arrangements in the Bill. It is their shape that is still the subject of further discussion.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who was curious about what I would say. I hope that I have satisfied his curiosity. Knowing that he would be among those present today, I was curious to know whether we would have had a better Committee stage had he been on the Committee. My verdict is very much in the balance, and we must wait and see.

Mr. Mitchell: I was not on the Committee because my party thought that I would better serve its cause doing something else—that is, nothing.
The Minister's explanation does not satisfy me. Although he is coming towards us, as on so many other issues, he is doing so in a vague and inchoate fashion. The arrangements are vague and hypothetical and deal with models and hypothetical guidelines. Companies are being asked to put in bids of millions of pounds, and need detailed and clear financial calculations and a firm basis on which to make them. All they are being offered are models, hypotheses, suggestions and guidelines. Surely that is not good enough to put a rational, calculated bid into the Government's auction. If it is not good enough, shall we not see a contest in which it is not the market that decides but a system emerges in which muscle counts and companies try to beat each other down?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair because it is absolutely clear that there has to be a networking arrangement; it is far less than clear whether or not it should be the ITC's duty to determine that and be the programme scheduler for the system, and whether that would necessarily lead to the emergence of a good, competitive Channel 3 or whether it would inhibit it. That is a question on which people equally committed to making the new system work and assisting potential franchise applicants may well agree to differ.
It is quite clear in the Bill that the ITC will be able to send out a formidable set of guidelines to would-be applicants who, if they fail to bring themselves within the guidelines, would be in grave risk of failing the quality threshold. So far so good. The question then is if, as I believe, there is a case for having a transitional arrangement that can be prescribed and the framework for which would have to be in the Bill, who will police it? Should it be policed primarily by the ITC or the OFT? Those matters are still the subject of discussions. I am unable to come forward with a concluded view, but that is exceptional. For the most part, we have been able to reach conclusions on many of the issues.
There is no division between us on the need for a networking arrangement, only how it might best come about. There is no dispute on the need to massage that difficult transitional period in the interests of giving the ITC——

Mr. Bruce Grocott: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I have spotted the hon. Gentleman, so he need not worry—in the interests of giving the ITC and prospective franchise applicants a fair chance to do the proper job that we want them to do in weighing up the various quality bids. That is where matters stand.

Mr. Grocott: The Minister has been critical of present networking arrangements. They have not been perfect, but I think he would agree that they have produced outstanding programmes. We are in great danger of putting such programming at risk. He is asking us to take it all on trust and somehow a networking arrangement will come about, but what if that does not happen? What policing does he envisage if there is a free-for-all between the new companies? The new system is so unpredictable that there is no guarantee against a free-for-all. Therefore,


what guarantees can he give us that there will be a networking arrangement under the proposals that he has in mind?

Mr. Mellor: The best guarantee is that it is impossible to envisage Channel 3 without a networking arrangement. We must not assume that those who will be running Channel 3 are too foolish to recognise that. I believe that they do. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the issue is who should call the shots on the arrangement. He commends the old arrangement—fair enough—but he should remember that it emerged by agreement between the companies and was not imposed on them. I am arguing against the need for the ITC to impose a networking arrangement on them.
The old magic circle of five kept out many companies that had a proven capability to make programmes, and those companies resented that and squealed about it. Many other people saw the force of that. That is why there is a competition issue involved, and the key question is what role should we assign to the ITC, and what role to the OFT and fair trading regulations more generally. That is the difficulty we have to resolve.
I think that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is right. In the longer run it would be best to leave it to the companies to determine these matters, as they determined the earlier ones, subject to the right of intervention on competition grounds. By the way, clause 2 gives that right to the ITC, as well as to OFT, on the basis of ensuring fair and effective competition.
What particularly exercises my mind is the need to massage the transition from one set of franchise holders to the next by virtue of setting out a clear networking arrangement for a transitional period. We are still deliberating within Government on that issue. I am sorry it has not been possible to conclude those discussions for the Report stage. Of course, it will have to be scrutinised in the other place and we will have plenty of opportunity to consider the matter when the Bill comes back, so we are not attempting to keep the House out of the discussions.

Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend has reassured the House. He has agreed that there is a need for a transitional arrangement which will provide a networking arrangement which would be viable for the ITC and at least prospective for every bidder. May I encourage him to recognise that the context in which the cartel became such an obvious restrainer of trade was largely the monopoly of ITV? There will be a much broader competitive base for television than in the past. That in itself will make the market easier. I certainly commend the view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend that ITC should not be the arbiter of what is anti-competitive. The Office of Fair Trading should be the regulator where the market will be more widespread than before.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The debate has been helpful. I am sorry that I cannot finally make a categoric statement on how the Government propose to manage the transition. I hope that I have

shown sufficient recognition of the problem that those who tabled the new clauses will not feel that they need to press them to a vote.

Mr. Corbett: I have listened with interest to the Minister——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, so he will need leave to speak again.

Mr. Corbett: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I have listened with care to what the Minister said. I must confess to being puzzled. I should have thought that an expression of view on one or other of the proposed new clauses might have concentrated the minds of the present ITV licence holders and encouraged them to come up with the voluntary arrangement which the Minister supports, certainly as a transitional arrangement. We are left with the dilemma that, without something along those lines being written into the Bill, the best that can happen is that the ITC can give a clear steer. I do not think it satisfactory to leave matters in that way.
The Minister and some of his hon. Friends have exposed a difference between us, and it is well to have it out in the open. In our view, this is not a matter of competition policy. There is a competition aspect to it in the sense that any networking arrangement ought to be open and fair. In one breath the Minister is talking about the present rotten arrangement, which at least is voluntary, yet he wants to leave the companies to get on with it so that they may come up with something better. In the trade that is known as an each way bet.
I understand the narrow point about competition aspects, but essentially it should not be about competition policy. It is all to do with the quality of what people can see on their television screens. The quality of range and diversity which we should look to a networking arrangement to deliver will come only on the back of proper funding and proper investment in training and facilities, and in proper investment as well in the new writers who, we hope, will be increasingly attracted to use the medium. The Minister will recall that I have a narrow, vested, sordid family interest in these matters, but I put it in a much wider context. Not a few of those whose works appear regularly on our television screens have been encouraged by initial amounts of development money from television companies, some quite properly in the ITV sector. It is rare that someone can deliver a script and have it accepted straight away. That is why it is much more a matter of quality investment than one narrow aspect of competition policy.
I had hoped that the Minister would look favourably upon one or other of the new clauses, the better to encourage a voluntary arrangement which would have to be overseen by the IBA in the process of awarding the licence. I am sorry that the Minister has not chosen to do so. I anticipate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will have something to say on the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: I listened with great interest to the Minister. He has taken discussion of the matter a good deal further—although not, I regret, to conclusion. It is remarkable that we should allow the Bill to depart from this House to another place with no real certainty about


what is regarded by the chairman-elect of the IBA/ITC, Mr. George Russell, as a matter of crucial importance to the success of the new scheme.
We have had a direct plea for a transitional arrangement and a positive response from the Minister on the need for such an arrangement, but a new idea has been floated today that that should involve the Office of Fair Trading, perhaps. I find that disturbing. It would not be likely to ease the task of the new regulatory authority if another regulatory body could inject its thoughts into the extraordinarily difficult task of allocating franchises to set up the new Channel 3. It would be a colossally difficult complication for the ITC, and perhaps not one on which the Office of Fair Trading could bring any expertise to bear in seeking to decide the competition aspect.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is right: it is not primarily a matter of competition policy; it is a matter of making sure that the most appropriate programmes are made regionally and seen nationally. Although there are competition issues, they are secondary. I hope that the Minister will have that in mind in deciding whether or not the Office of Fair Trading should be involved.
I do not altogether hold it against the Minister that he has not come forward today with a final scheme. I think that he had been looking to the companies to provide him with a scheme. The very fact that they have not done so makes it clear how difficult it is and how important that it should be got right. I think that the ITC will need a fallback power if the companies do not come up with something. It may be needed beyond the transitional period which the Minister seems willing to concede. That may be needed to ensure that the cartel, which the Minister clearly did not like and about which he spoke disparagingly, does not re-emerge.
It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about the possibility of the ITC utilising the guidelines as a means of giving a steer in the matter. I suppose it is possible that the commission could use its powers to attach conditions to the granting of a franchise licence which, in effect, set up a network arrangement. However, that would not be a desirable way to approach the matter. It is better to look at such things in the round and for the ITC to take a proposal only as a fallback in the event of the companies not being able to agree something themselves. I hope that, by putting this clear support to a transitional arrangement on the face of the Bill, the Minister is not at the same time setting his face against a fallback power to set up a network arrangement in the absence of such an arrangement being agreed to the satisfaction of the ITC.
Because of the importance of this matter, and as this may well be the last opportunity that the House has to deal with it, it is necessary for us to register our concern by dividing the House. The Minister may be right, and perhaps there will be delivered from another place an amendment that gives us the opportunity to discuss the matter again. However, we may not have such an opportunity, and we must send a signal to the other place that we attach great importance to this. We must also send a signal to the companies that, if they do not come up with a satisfactory arrangement, it is imperative that an arrangement be imposed upon them.

Mr. John Greenway: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken and he would need the leave of the House if he wished to speak again.

Mr. Greenway: By leave of the House. I shall be brief. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seeks to divide the House, because the commitment given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister shows that he recognises that there must be a network arrangement. It would be better to allow further progress on the discussions to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 282.

Division No. 193]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gordon, Mildred


Ashton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grocott, Bruce


Battle, John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Beckett, Margaret
Hinchliffe, David


Beith, A. J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hood, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Geraint


Bidwell, Sydney
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Blair, Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ingram, Adam


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kilfedder, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terry


Cartwright, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Crowther, Stan
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fearn, Ronald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin






Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Jo
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Robertson, George
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Soley, Clive
Mr. John McFall.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Cran, James


Amos, Alan
Critchley, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Curry, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkins, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gardiner, George


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burt, Alistair
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butler, Chris
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hanley, Jeremy





Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hind, Kenneth
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Holt, Richard
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Sir Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Janman, Tim
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shersby, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thome, Neil


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miller, Sir Hal
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Sir Charles
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen






Wheeler, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

FINANCING OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES OUT OF TELEVISION EDUCATION FUND

`(1) The Secretary of State shall, for the financial year beginning with 1st April 1992 and each subsequent financial year, pay to the Commission such amounts as he and the Commission, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be appropriate for the purposes of this section.

(2) Any amount received by the Commission under subsection (1) above shall be credited by them to a fund established by them under this section, to be known as the Television Education Fund.

(3) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and section 31 and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the making of educational programmes intended for schools, for continuing education for adults and for connected purposes.

(4) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.

(5) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of children's and adult education.

(6) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may:

(a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and
(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

(7) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection 6 or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.

(8) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year to which subsection (1) applies, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commission.

(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

(10) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take Government amendment No. 655.

Mr. Maclennan: There was a valuable debate in Committee, when all sides agreed on the importance of educational programmes. The new clause is designed to

strengthen the provisions that have already been made to ensure that education forms an important part of the programming of the Channel 3 companies.
Educational programmes act not only as a stimulus for children, but as an important teaching aid for teachers. It is a medium that children can understand and appreciate. Most schools now have television, even if they are short of books or staff. A poll has shown that 12 per cent. of primary school teachers and 8·5 per cent. of secondary school teachers consider television central to education.
The Government have already acknowledged the importance of educational programmes by their amend-ments, which are a welcome strengthening of the Bill. However, we must recognise that educational programmes are costly to make, because they have a limited appeal to advertisers. I think that it would be appropriate to establish a fund to provide additional support for the programme makers, to ensure that provision for them is not skimped. That could be done along the lines already provided for in the Bill, such as for the promotion of Gaelic.
My new clause follows the structure of the provisions for Gaelic in some detail. Its purpose is to prime the pump for the production of educational programmes. As with Gaelic, the money would be expected to be in addition to the money made available by the companies. The new clause is, I think, self-explanatory, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister.

Mr. Mellor: I commend Government amendment No. 655, which is attached to new clause 8. It is the Government's response to the concern that "outreach" materials should be made available to schools by the television channels providing schools programmes. The amendment would have that effect, and I commend it to the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the manner in which he put the case for his new clause, and for the brevity of his remarks. He knows that I attach importance to both aspects of education on television: first, schools programming, which clause 31 specifically requires, and, secondly, continuing educational programmes that are an established part of the television scene. They will, in particular, be part of the remit of BBC2 and Channel 4, but will continue to have a place on Channel 3, because the ITC, in the strong guidance that it will give to franchise applicants, will be able to say that it expects to see reflected the broad range of programmes presently available on the ITV system. I was heartened by the fact that the ITC has specifically said that, as we have added religious and children's programmes to the specific requirements of Channel 3, it sees no need for additional programme types to be specified.
7 pm
I am also sure that the ITC will want to consult with others outside to make sure that the programmes broadcast are as helpful and relevant as possible and take account of up-to-date policies and techniques. My disagreement with new clause 8 is that the structure of the arrangements should be a matter for the ITC and the licensees, not one that we should particularise in the Bill.
I see no reason for thinking that good quality programmes cannot be funded in the way that they presently are. The danger of agreeing to an education fund


is that we might then find an unanswerable case for a television drama fund or a television children's programmes fund. If I really believed that we would not have educational programmes without making some changes in the fianancial arrangements, I could well imagine wanting to think about an education fund, but because I have no evidence that would suggest that there was likely to be any difficulty in handing the baton on from one group of licencees to the other with, if anything, a rather firmer statutory framework than we propose, the case for the fund has not been made out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Mark Fisher: This brief debate has replicated one in Committee. Once again, the Minister has been enormously sympathetic to the good points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) but has missed the essential thrust by confusing education with schooling. Government amendment No. 655 and the way in which the Minister answered the hon. Gentleman's case show that he believes that this is a matter of whether schools programmes can be properly balanced and resourced. In doing so, the Minister misunderstands the new clause and our arguments in Committee.
The Opposition believe that education is more than just schools programmes. There is also continuing and further education. When Lord Reith identified education, along with information and entertainment, as one of the three main purposes of broadcasting, he was not just referring to its contribution to school education; he was talking about the way in which broadcasting can widen all our minds throughout our lives. That is the responsibility that broadcasters should bear in mind, and the Government should be helping them to do so in the Bill.
Amendment No. 655 is fine as far as it goes and I am glad that it mentions the use of materials and resources, but I hope that the Minister will understand that more is needed in that respect. Education officers employed by the ITV companies do far more than just provide programmes and publish back-up material. They work with local education authorities and put on conferences. They have a menu of work and initiatives and liaise with education authorities. Their work is invaluable and backs up and informs the materials and programmes referred to in the amendment. I hope that the Minister understands that.
As we said in Committee, every ITV company has an education officer and many big ones employ two, but after the next round of franchises I fear that there will be an enormous reduction. I shall be amazed if all ITV companies have that range of senior, well-paid officials. I hope that they will have them, and I would encourage them to have them, but I fear that they will not.
We are not just talking about schools. Broadcasting can contribute to the quality of life in the 1990s and help us to close the gap that many people perceive is already widening between ourselves, West Germany and France in the quality of our education, not just in schools and colleges but throughout our population, if we are to become an intelligent and educated democracy in the 1990s in a way that we are not now. We cannot leave that to schools and colleges. Broadcasting has a central role to play in improving education and the attitude towards education in our society. The fund is an interesting and imaginative idea, and the Minister's response is not fully in

tune with the proposal or the challenge of education. He is still confusing that with the narrow but important area of school education.
There is time for the Government to reconsider the matter and I hope that they will take up the debate in another place. When the Bill comes back to this place, I hope that the Government will have accepted the fairly non-contentious—in party-political terms—case that we are making. The education responsibilities that broad-casters must have placed upon them go far beyond the school room. That is the burden that they should be carrying in the 1990s. That is a positive remit for education and for broadcasting in the 1990s. I hope that the Government will think again and will accept the proposal at a later stage.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am glad to welcome his amendment, but I regret that he has not seen fit to commend my new clause. He is unduly sanguine in believing that the quality of educational programmes can be assured by the regulatory requirement that education shall figure in the programme mix advanced by the would-be franchise holders.
I have no doubt that the ITC will look for educational components in the programmes, but the Minister has failed to recognise—it was implicit in earlier debates—that operating in the new, more competitive market means that programme makers and companies will have to look much more carefully, and will look much more carefully, at programmes which do not attract audiences in which advertisers are interested.
This is not just a matter of carrying forward good standards of educational broadcasting. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is right in saying that we are talking not just about schools but about further education throughout life. It is a bit overoptimistic to assume such good standards in the new world of broadcasting into which we are moving unless specific assistance of a non-commercial kind is made available.
I acknowledge that there is some danger in setting up funds for this and that aspect, but education is probably the area where there would be the most complete agreement on the importance of maintaining standards.
I acknowledge that the debate is not new, but it is a pity that the Minister has not felt able, on reconsideration, to accept the new clause in principle. I hope that he is right that the mere regulatory requirement for educational programmes will achieve what he hopes to achieve, but I must express considerable doubt that it will.
I was not proposing necessarily large sums of money. The fund would have entirely open-ended. A number of different sources could have contributed to it. I think that such a fund would have commended itself to those who care about education. I have heard what the Minister said and I can say no more.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

CHANNEL 5 REMIT

`As regards the programmes (other than advertisements) broadcast on Channel 5 it shall be the duty of the Commission to ensure—

(a) that for part of the broadcasting time, the service offers regional programmes for such number of


regions the ITC may specify and that a substantial number of such programmes are made within the region for which they are provided.
(b) that for part of its broadcasting time the service offers educational or training programmes

and generally that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 382 and amend-ment No. 487, in clause 26, page 24, line 35, after 'licence', insert 'or licences'.

Mr. Corbett: One of the most remarkable features of the Bill is how little it says about Channel 5. It contains just 15 lines on that subject. Never mind that the new channel faces great uncertainty given the present state of advertising and that forecast immediately ahead. Never mind that the Government have refused to give the IBA authority to begin making transmission arrangements for the new channel.
With one breath the Government say that they want Channel 5, but beyond that there is silence—save their acknowledgment that the new channel will cover only seven out of 10 homes and that much of London and the south-east, which is the wealthiest market for advertising, will not be able to receive it.
There is a little teaser in the shape of Government amendment No. 382, with which the Government seek to give the Independent Television Commission the authority to grant a part-time licence
between such times of the day or on such days of the week (or both) as they may determine.
That is a fairly feeble way of moving sideways into a great expansion of public broadcasting.
All that the Bill says about Channel 5 is that it shall
make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided.
Not a word is said about programming, and I do not doubt that ere long I will be told, "That is all right because the people running Channel 5 will provide programmes that attract audiences, otherwise they will go out of business." That in a nutshell is the Government's argument about the application of so-called market forces to broadcasting.
It is reasonable to assume that one of Channel 5's roles will be to fill the gaps between BBC1 and BBC2 and between Channel 3 and Channel 4. All four channels were intended to complement each other and not compete head on, and it was certainly agreed in Committee that Channel 4 has been an outstanding success and has brought much innovation to television. That does not mean that all of us like every programme that Channel 4 presents. None the less, that channel has honoured the remit that it was given.
If Channel 5 is intended to fill the gaps between the existing BBC and ITV services, it is likely that it will end up trying to mimic satellite channels and go for thematic programming, with great wadges of sport, news, and the rest of it. That will not help the development of satellite broadcasting, which has generally been welcomed in all parts of the House, as well as by an increasing number of viewers.
New clause 12 aims at giving Channel 5 a specific role and allowing it to provide programming that is not offered by Channel 3, or at least not in sufficient volume. It

deliberately places the emphasis on programmes made in and for a region. That would give the new channel a stronger regional flavour than Channel 3 is ever likely to achieve or would want to achieve. It would also establish an important place for educational or training programmes, or both, on the television viewing menu.
There is a strong demand for such programmes, as the IBA's 1989 survey of attitudes to television revealed. The survey showed that two out of three people would like more nature and wildlife programmes. Broadly speaking, I regard them as being educational. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member would argue that educational programmes must be all chalk and talk and conform to the old, narrow view of them. An educational programme can be any that stretches the imagination and opens our eyes and ears to things that are new to us.
Forty-eight out of 100 people in the IBA survey wanted to see more programmes dealing with health and medical topics, while 75 out of every 100 wanted the same or a greater amount of current affairs programming. There appears to be a healthy body of demand for programmes of a factual nature as opposed to those that are purely entertaining—though I do not mean for a moment to deride TV light entertainment. The new clause merely tries to ensure that Channel 5 will have a distinctive flavour and a special role, and to provide ways of achieving that.
7.15 pm
Channel 5 offers real scope for innovation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is no longer in her place, because I know that my following remarks would be of particular appeal to her. Why not a specific obligation on whoever obtains the Channel 5 licence to broadcast more programmes by and for women to challenge head-on the still too-male preserve of much of today's television? There have been improvements, but there is still far too much stereotyping. I made mention of programmes for and by women, but not exclusively so. Such a provision could give a better welcome for women writers, producers and directors in working in, and contributing to, our television system.
What about a better platform for our ethnic communities? Existing ethnic broadcasting is patchy, and there is not enough of it. There could be a proper place for ethnic scheduling in Channel 5, not only to meet the needs of ethnic communities but to enable them to communicate with the rest of us so that we may better understand their concerns and aspirations. One of the complications of the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's book is that most of us have little or no understanding of why it caused so much offence to Muslims in our communities. Television nowhere near properly reflects our multi-cultural society, and I suspect that under the present arrangements it is unable to do so.
The foregoing suggestions are by no means exclusive but serve to outline the shape of the new Channel 5 in more detail than is provided by the 15 lines in the Bill. Its future cannot be left simply to the highest bidder and to the ITC. Our television system has developed on the basis of sensible regulation, and has been built almost brick by brick to expand the range of viewing available and offer more real choice. New clause 12 is part of that continuing process.
My suggestions certainly reflect the last line of new clause 12, which states that the commission has a duty to ensure


that Channel 5 has a distinctive character of its own.
Left to market forces, Channel 5 runs the risk of being shapeless or of pandering to known tastes, the better to maximise audience figures for the benefit of advertisers. If Channel 5 is to work in the way that the Government say they want, it must offer programmes that are not currently available elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members will go along with the spirit of the new clause.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend inject some argument into the debate on issues about which the Broadcasting Bill should be concerned. It was about time.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) in his place. In the last debate on broadcasting he said that, whatever else happened because of the Bill, television would get worse. Everything that has been said throughout the passage of the Bill has borne that out.
The Bill gives us an opportunity. My God, the invention of broadcasting was an immense opportunity to enlighten the world. We can broadcast to the whole of humanity. But the Government want to create programmes which will be left to the moneymakers. We will not have useful information or programmes that the broadcasters themselves might demand to see—we will have programer that maximise the audience.
It is not given unto man to say only what people want to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the book by Salman Rushdie and the fact that it gives offence. There is little that is creative in the world that fails to give offence. If it does not give offence it does not move people. The same can be said of the path envisaged for Channel 5.

Mr. Corbett: The point that I was trying to make about "The Satanic Verses" is that people who are not part of an ethnic community find it difficult to understand the offence that members of those communities feel about the book. I was not pointing out merely that it had caused offence.

Mr. Buchan: I take my hon. Friends valuable point. I was not being critical. We do not sufficiently understand the nature of the offence felt by members of ethnic communities about the book. I have had discussions with such communities and I know of the depth of feeling. However, I have often felt major offence and I believe that the reply to a book which gives offence is another book. For example, consider the incident that took place in the west Highlands when the Free Kirk Moderator attacked the Catholic church two years ago, calling it the whore of Babylon and a scarlet woman, and accusing people who attacked the South African regime as attacking it merely because members of that regime are Calvanists, who take the prayer book to a cabinet meeting. A poet gave a reply: Ian Crichton-Smith, who printed one of the best verse polemics that I have ever heard. Nobody said that people should be silent.
We should use broadcasting. I should like to hear Muslims giving their views on Channel 5. I should like to see the issue properly argued and statements made about it. That is what Channel 5 could do. A proliferation of repetitive and competitive channels for the majority of people will not advance viewing for the majority.
With the proliferation of channels we have an opportunity to broadcast minority programmes. Remember that when we talk about minorities in broadcasting we are referring to millions of people. A

minority programme may have between 2 million and 4 million viewers. That is a massive audience. It is more than Shakespeare got for his plays in two centuries of performances on the stage. It is a marvellous weapon.
Proliferation to five channels means that there is no anxiety that what Conservative Members crudely call popular will not be televised. There will be no choice if people do not have a variety of channels.
My favourite examples are wildlife programmes. No one would have predicted that wildlife programmes such as those of Sir David Attenborough would have become so popular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington was too kind to the Government. He said that there are 15 lines describing the new channel in the Bill, but he is wrong; there are only two. The only instructions given in the Bill are that it should.
make the most effective use of the frequencies on which it is to be provided.
But the most effective use for a commercial channel is that which will make the most profit. That is the only instruction.
In Australia, there are 10 channels and little competition in the type of programmes broadcast, with one interesting exception—an ethnic channel which broadcasts films in Italian, German, the languages of the Indian sub-continent and the aborigine language. In other words, the channel is used to make programmes which appeal to a large variety of people and which enhance their cultures and civilisations. That is a positive force.
The new clause does not mention educational programmes. What involvement will there be with the Open university? If there is none, why not? Is there any reason why such requirements should not be laid down? There is nothing about the extent of documentary coverage. There is nothing about educational program-mes. Conservative Members seem to resent those programmes, and yet they are among the most popular.
To create a new channel with no remit other than to make profit, is intolerable. It is time that we recognised the importance of broadcasting. It is an extension of man's ability to communicate with man—and with woman—and there is no reason why such a channel should not devote more time to that. When we construct a new channel there must be more provisions. Otherwise, we might as well make candy floss and flog it on Blackpool pier.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We have heard no arguments about how we can achieve more diversity and pluralism in our television channels. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has just said. Diversity must be the aim. If we leave the position of this free-standing channel undefined, it will inevitably be driven to broadcast programmes which are the lowest common denominator to attract mass audiences and to survive.
The new channel will be financially vulnerable. Indeed, it has all the makings of a financial disaster, given the scale of competition. We must define clearly the scope of the new channel rather let it be driven willy-nilly by market forces to duplicate the rubbish on other channels.
Each new terrestrial channel which has been created has been complementary to another major channel—for example, BBC2 was complementary to BBC 1, and Channel 4 to ITV. When Channel 4 was created I argued that the Annan recommendation, which was that it should


be a free-standing publishing channel, should be rejected in favour of making it complementary to ITV. With complementary channels the viewer has a genuine choice.
In the new clause we are dealing with a free-standing channel in an intensely competitive market. The audiences are already fragmented. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said: the future lies with people getting their main television viewing from terrestrial channels and turning to cable and satellite television for specialised interests such as film, sport, politics, news—there are news addicts as well as sport addicts—or light entertainment. It is difficult to see how a free-standing channel will fit into that situation.
The Government want to let the market decide but in the media the market does not operate effectively because in an unregulated situation the market tends towards competition and towards driving down the level of programmes to the lowest common denominator.
The new channel will have to compete for advertising and it will have to attract advertising revenue. Horses, if fed on the same type of hay, will produce the same manure. To survive, the new channel will be driven down market.
There is a law of competition which is exemplified by the British popular press compared with the American popular press. The latter is insulated from intense competition by local monopolies and is of a higher quality than ours, which is appalling. In many respects it is the worst in the world. Compare television in Britain, which is the least worst in the world because it is regulated and does not suffer from intense competition, with American television, where one has 40 choices to view the same rubbish on different channels.
It is an achievement that we have insulated television by regulation, and by modifying competition and weakening its intensity we have managed to maintain standards. If we now thrust a fifth free-standing channel into an industry where competition is becoming more intense and without a clearly defined brief, we shall condemn it to becoming nothing more than a provider of the lowest common denominator attempting to grab the mass audience. Therefore, we need to define its brief clearly before it starts.
What attracts me about the new clause is that it requires the fifth channel to be of a distinctive character from the other four terrestrial channels. Only by such a process of definition can we ensure the provision not of more rubbish on more channels but of something unique and distinctive so that we advance pluralism and variety rather than produce more opportunities to see lowest common denominator programmes.

Mr. Rowlands: I wish to make a different point about the fifth channel. I made it in Committee and I repeat it now. It is all very well for my hon. Friends to say what they would like to see on Channel 5, but people in many parts of the nation will not be able to see Channel 5. The so-called fifth national channel will be physically constrained by transmitters and and by its terrestrial nature and character. Fewer than 40 per cent. of the Principality will be able to receive the signal, so it seems academic to be debating what should be shown on it.
The Minister and others will say that there will be 70 per cent. national coverage, but because of its character

and nature—and a decision has been made about the fifth channel—it is not capable of expansion except by further cabling or using satellites for the rest of the nation. It does not have the same capacity that BBC1, BBC2 and ITV have to achieve the national coverage to which we are accustomed—90 per cent. or more.
Therefore, we have every right to say not only that we have grave doubts about what might appear on the fifth national channel and about whether it will become a truly national channel. If it will not—and perhaps I am a lone voice in saying this—a totally different strategy should have been adopted. The alternative to creating a fifth national terrestrial channel which will probably be nothing more than a downbeat version of the other commercial channels reaching out to fewer parts of the United Kingdom is to use the opportunity of a fifth channel to create genuine regional television. Around cities one could have introduced a different diversity from that proposed by my hon. Friends. Rather than using it for a so-called major new national channel, the opportunity should have been used to produce regional and local television, thereby creating diversity.
I do not necessarily give the new clause my whole-hearted support. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) talks about a Channel 5 remit without talking about how far that remit will reach. Everyone has suggested that the channel will be in some difficulty, technically and commercially. There should be a complete rethink about how we use the last available terrestrial resource to produce a different pattern of five-channel television from what has been suggested by the Government and by some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I understand that Channel 5 will reach only about 65 to 70 per cent. of the population; people in his region and parts of Scotland will not be able to see it. That problem needs to be addressed because a new transmission system would be required to enable Channel 5 to penetrate all parts of the country, as I believe it should.
As I understand the Bill, certain of our fears are met by the fact that Channel 5 will have a quality threshold.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a point which is easily missed. Channel 5 will have exactly the quality threshold and exceptional circumstan-ces arrangements that will apply to Channel 3.

Mr. Banks: In fairness to the Minister, I thought that. I should make that point, but one problem that we raised in Committee and no doubt will return to is that if a franchise application based on high quality is awarded the franchise by the ITC, we want to ensure that if there is any retreat from the standards that gained the franchise in the first place the ITC will be able to claw it back. That needs to be spelt out because our genuine fears would clearly be met by such a guarantee.
It is true that more does not necessarily imply difference, as we have seen in American and Australian television and other television in the world. The amendment is particularly commendable in that it tries to ensure that Channel 5 has a distinctive character. It is difficult to know precisely what role it would shape for itself, given the variety that already exists. However, Channel 4 has undoubtedly created a distinctive role in


broadcasting and the amendment is seeking a similar role for Channel 5. I feel reasonably satisfied that, provided that the quality threshold argument is met in full and there is sufficient ability for the ITC to take back the franchise in the event of a franchise holder reneging on assurances given, our fears will be put into context.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been most helpful because he has touched on a vital point. All the arrangements that apply to Channel 3 apply to Channel 5, not least those which I am most proud of and committed to—the opportunity for much more rigorous enforcement of programme promises than is possible under the existing system.
Channel 5 should be welcomed as an opportunity—not problem-free by any means—to bring relatively straightforwardly to 70 per cent. of the nation an additional terrestrial channel. Of course, 100 per cent. coverage can be obtained only by finding alternative means of transmission. Large tranches of the country cannot be covered as that would interfere with continental signals. That applies not only to Wales. I recognise that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has been entirely consistent in making that point and I am genuinely sorry that nature does not permit me to meet it.
From a commercial point of view, it is worth pointing out that quite large chunks of southern England will not be covered. Although I believe that Channel 5 will be viable, its commercial base will require some careful thought by those that put in for the franchise. We have BBC1 and BBC2 with their specific remits and we have Channel 4 with its remit to cater for minority tastes even more firmly entrenched in statute as a result of the Bill than it was before; we have Channel 3 a notch down from public service broadcasting with a wide remit as a mass audience channel. That is not the same as a mass entertainment channel. The word almost slipped from my lips, but the House knows that I have added commitments that will ensure that Channel 3 is a great deal more than that. By that definition, Channel 5 will be a notch down from public service broadcasting, but the quality threshold will have to be met. I hope that there will be a genuine and imaginative response by the applicants for Channel 5 which will make use of the potential of an extra terrestrial channel in a new way.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose——

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is terribly active tonight. I do not know whether he is on illegal stimulants.

Mr. Mitchell: I am active because I am concerned that the Minister has made so few concessions to sense and rationality on the Bill. The promises and predictions held out on the quality threshold will not apply in the face of financial disaster. We already have the experience of London Weekend Television and TV-am, both of which were allowed to dilute their applications. Yet they were not faced with the dire financial position that Channel 5 is likely to face.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman betrays his absence —alas—from the Committee. I do not criticise his absence, which may have helped us to get the job done. He is wrong

to think that there was little change in Committee. He would know that if he had sat in Committee instead of making a lot of money on Sky Television—which is one of the worst indictments of Sky Television. If he had heard the discussions in Committee, he would know that one source of pride in the Bill for more than just Conservative Members is the fact that as a result of what we have done in Committee we have given the Independent Television Commission far more powers than the Independent Broadcasting Authority ever had to hold people to account for their programme promises. I attach importance to that. The IBA was given a remit which included a nuclear deterrent—the right to take away a franchise, yet it did not have sufficient day-to-day powers, such as the power to fine. However, I was making a somewhat different point.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has said that many of the provisions for granting franchises for Channel 3 will apply to Channel 5, including the quality threshold. Is it intended that the published illustrative guidelines should also apply to Channel 5? That would also affect its remit.

Mr. Mellor: That is more a matter for the ITC; it is not prescribed. We must be aware that, in the end, it is the broadcasters who will give Channel 5 a character, subject to a framework that will be properly administered by the ITC.
As I go round the country meeting different broadcasting interests, I am enormously encouraged by the interest in Channel 5, especially from one or two imaginative groups who see the opportunity of a Channel 5 franchise to broaden their ability to expand the choice on British television. I am satisfied that, if broadcasters do not take that approach, the channel will not thrive. It will not be easy to make Channel 5 successful and it will not happen by just wishing it to he so.
We want to ensure that the ITC has the greatest flexibility in maximising the potential of Channel 5. It is not a statutory requirement, but it is likely that it will advertise the Channel 5 franchise—or franchises—after it has dealt with the Channel 3 franchises to ensure that some who might have preferred a Channel 3 franchise can apply for Channel 5 if they wish. Government amendment No. 382 is important. It would permit the ITC to advertise for more than one Channel 5 franchise, if it thought that right, and to divide up the time if it thought that the channel would be better if there was more than one contractor.
A range of innovative thinking is not blocked out. I have always envisaged Channel 5 as a national channel, but that does not preclude it having local opt-outs. During my discussions with the chairman of the IBA this morning, the idea was mentioned that 50 different towns and cities could participate in Channel 5 and could have local opt-outs. Channel 5 would thus be on a local rather than a regional basis, which is an important idea. It is not precluded by the statutory framework and could be the basis of a serious submission which, on quality grounds, could carry all before it and could be the beneficiary of the arrangement on exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Rowlands: I have listened with increasing interest to the Minister. I proposed an alternative structure by which, rather than pursuing a national channel which could not reach the whole nation, we should consider a


regional or city structure and create a different and imaginative fifth terrestrial channel. To what extent does the Minister support that idea?

Mr. Mellor: I have always considered that Channel 5 should be a unitary channel to succeed, although that may show the limitation of my own imaginative response. Plainly the idea that Channel 5 could involve a host of local opt-outs—far more extensive than the regional opt-outs on Channel 3—is gaining currency in some circles. If a serious bid is made on that basis, the ITC could accept it as we are placing no block on an imaginative response to the potential of Channel 5. The House is in a worse position to determine these issues than those who will have the challenging task of making Channel 5 viable. To win themselves a place in the broadcasting future, they will need to be able to create a specific and different atmosphere on their channel which will attract viewers. They will start with the difficulty of not having national coverage and of not having within their immediate reach some of the most attractive areas in terms of the amount of advertising revenue that could be unleashed.
The ITC will be able to offer more than one franchise. The idea that the system could be based on town or city opt-outs is not blocked, enabling Channel 5 to be a national and a local station. All of that sets a challenge to the broadcasting community and I have sufficient confidence in the broadcasting community to believe that it will respond positively to that challenge. I have been heartened by the number of people—including one or two of the better people whom I know who are involved in various production activities—who are seriously interested in such ideas. Channel 5 will be a good shop window for British broadcasting talent. It will be none the worse if, having set a framework that is appropriate to ensure that there is a decent standard, we leave some of the more creative thinking to the broadcasters and do not try to usurp that function ourselves.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the Minister is talking a lot more sense than he did in Committee. He has learnt his lessons in our long, three months' struggle. I do not remember the technicalities. However, is he now saying that "exceptional" will apply not only to quality as a result of our discussions in Committee but to interesting and original ideas on the structure, such as his suggestion of opt-outs? Can that now supersede the highest bid?

Mr. Mellor: That goes to quality. If someone puts forward a set of proposals with a series of local arrangements within a national framework, nothing would preclude the ITC from seeing that as an exceptionally good quality bid. I see that as part of surmounting the quality threshold. It would be an imaginative response and its evaluation would be a matter for the ITC. I profoundly believe that the remit we give to Channel 5 will prevent it from being lowest common denominator trash. It will also give the broadcasters, who are better placed than we are, the opportunity to find a solution to the key question, "Can Channel 5 find its place in the order of things?" I believe that it can, but only if it receives a highly imaginative response from broadcasters. In effect, I am saying that I trust the broadcasting community to respond, and I urge others to do so.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Opposition that there is not much difference between us on these matters. Although I realise that this is one of the key areas that the Opposition have identified for debate, I hope that——

Mr. Buchan: It might be useful if the Minister could carry his remarks a stage further. The proposals will be going to the other place for discussion and it might help if the hon. and learned Gentleman said not only that such matters were not precluded but that they would be accepted as exceptional. It would help if he took that little step forward to ensure that their Lordships had at least heard the argument. After all, they may be able to secure that which the Minister says he seeks—original ideas and good quality. Why not spell it out?

Mr. Mellor: I am arguing that original ideas are the essence of a quality bid but that it is a matter for the ITC to evaluate such ideas. I cannot usurp the ITC's function by telling it what to find exceptional—that would be wrong —but it will have plenty of scope to respond to an imaginative approach.
The ITC may well prefer a set of proposals that suggest a national framework, with no local dimension. I referred to the local dimension because it is certainly not ruled out and could very well be ruled in by the right kind of application. The fact that the chairman of the IBA is very much aware of these matters—he and I have talked about them—is a sign that, gradually and steadily, more people may come to consider them. There is quite a bit of time to go before people have to commit themselves. I am not just a vague believer in Channel 5—I have clear ideas about it —but in the end it will be to the broadcasting community that the challenge will go out.
I shall understand it if the Opposition feel obliged to push the new clause to a vote, but I hope that there has been a sufficient meeting of minds to render that unnecessary.

Mr. Corbett: Doubtless buoyed by some surprising local election results in Wandsworth, the Minister has gone a long way to meet the concerns expressed through the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made good points about people's ability to receive the proposed new Channel 5. The Minister referred to local opt-out. Large parts of the Principality are opted out, in the sense that they will be unable to receive the channel. I know that that is not what the Minister meant, but that will certainly happen.
Those of us who were privileged enough to serve on the Committee will remember with mixed feelings the advice that we regularly received from Dr. Brian Evans of Tantara Tek—a veritable electronic wizard, who tempted us to look beyond our present penny-farthing arrangements for the distribution of broadcasting. Dr. Evans never ceases to amaze. He was explaining the other day that digital television could overcome many of our problems with distribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was concerned that only 70 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom, and a very much smaller proportion in the Principality, would be able to receive the new Channel 5. It is also the case that only about 70 per cent. of homes in the United Kingdom will be able to receive satellite, because to do so one needs direct line of vision on to the signal. Trees and leaves—


even those of broad-leaved varieties of plants—can interrupt that. By the addition of yet another black box —a digital television decoder—we could make use of an existing television aerial to provide either 20 extra channels or 10 extra television channels and 50 extra radio channels for an estimated £250. There would then be no need for unsightly satellite dishes and we should be able to close the gap in the availability of cable television, which, on best estimates, is unlikely to be available to more than about 40 per cent. of those who live in urban areas. Perhaps we have not given enough thought during our proceedings to the technicalities of distribution.
Like many other hon. Members, I welcome the Minister's remarks about what can happen with Channel 5. I make no complaint, except to say that what he said is not immediately obvious from the 15 lines in the Bill and that we are again relying rather heavily on the nice Mr. George Russell. We are used to relying on that nice Mr. George Russell, but some of us wondered whether it would help him if we gave him the odd hint and nudge about what we think Channel 5 might usefully do. The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the central point that, if the channel is to have any chance of commercial success or of attracting viewers, it will have to provide something that is not readily available on the other channels.
The idea of a national channel from which large towns, cities and conurbations might be able to opt out is an interesting one. We should not get too carried away, however, because making television programmes is expensive, so there is an argument for that idea not being adopted. Most towns and cities that might consider opting out would probably be restricted to about one or two hours a day at best, although the House will forgive me if I say that we in Birmingham would probably manage four hours a day. Such arrangements could provide an interesting mix.
When I opened the debate I expressed some ideas about what Channel 5 might do. I did not mean them to be exclusive. Having heard what the Minister said, I now think that some of those ambitions might be more easily achievable on a local opt-out basis. As I said, if the channel is to succeed, it must have something distinctive about it. It must provide people with a reason for switching over to it and then staying tuned in. The Minister has suggested that there are at least some signs that that is well understood by those in the broadcasting industry.
At one stage in Committee, the Minister was giving out Smarties regularly. It is only right that I should return the compliment and offer him a small chocolate biscuit, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

`(1) The Commission shall require applicants for a licence under Part I of this Act to provide an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy and from time to time to review its operation.

(2) The Commission shall require licence holders to obtain from independent producers used by them an undertaking of their commitment to an equal opportunities policy.'.[Mr. Fisher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after second 'chairman', insert, `who shall not be of the same sex as the Chairman'.
No. 1, in page 2, line 1, after 'members', insert
'at least half of whom shall be women'.
No. 4, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, at end insert—
`( ) that it will 'deliver a wide range of diverse programmes of particular interest to women and which provide a balanced portrayal of the lives of women.'.

Mr. Fisher: The new clause deals with equal opportunities policy. Many of our debates—both in Committee and today, on Report—have been both detailed and technical, but behind them all lies the idea of the power of broadcasting to shape values, to carry forward our beliefs in our traditions, to stretch our prejudices and try to change them and to shape the way in which we think and live—in other words, to define our culture.
One of the strongest characteristics of our culture is that it is dominated by the views of the majority, as opposed to those in minority groups such as people with disabilities and people of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent. We can include in that category one majority of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be well aware. Women represent 52 per cent. of our population, although in the House we always seem to consider their view a minority view—in a way, correctly so, because the dominant culture in our society is a male culture.
Most institutions in our society are run by men, with a male perspective on life, and that colours the values and perspective that they have. Given that broadcasting is the most powerful element in our democracy—the most powerful element in our culture—the existence of a dominant culture in broadcasting shapes the way in which we shall think in future, the way that we are carrying forward views of our society, in a narrow and unhelpful way for a wider pluralist society.
8 pm
This is an important issue that the Bill and broadcasting in the 1990s should take on board. Unless we have a wide-ranging culture—if we continue to have a partial culture—we shall do ourselves and society a disservice. Opposition Members recognise—I hope that the Minister of State does, too, because he is fair-minded—that many cultures are missing out in our society. Broadcasting has a peculiar and a particular responsibility, because it is so powerful, to put that right. We have already recognised that in some parts of the Bill.
The Minister of State has already paid tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has done for the Welsh culture. I refer also to the Gaelic culture, but the Bill fails to recognise other cultures. The new clause would put a responsibility on the ITC to ensure that all holders of ITV, or Channel 3, franchises would have a responsibility to ensure that there was a wide range of views in their employment policy and in the way in which they represented the world around us. That seems to be eminently fair.

Mr. Mellor: I wonder whether it would help the hon. Gentleman if I said that I too feel that that is an eminently fair point. Although I cannot accept the new clause as it stands, I shall want to accept it in principle, with one or two little caveats about precise scope that I shall mention. However, I accept the essential thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. That might help him in terms of how long he will speak.

Mr. Fisher: That helps me enormously. I welcome what the Minister has to say. I look forward with some apprehension to his caveats, but if he accepts the thrust of the new clause, I welcome it very much indeed. I hope that, when he is shaping his own wording, he will have in mind, as we had in mind when shaping our new clause, the experience of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which had the same experience, particularly in relation to the views of women, that we have had in this country.
A couple of years ago, only five of the 165 top jobs in the BBC were held by women. Ten years ago, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that only 8 per cent. of its top jobs were held by women. It set up a monitoring unit. I am delighted to say that Mr. John Birt, the deputy director-general of the BBC, has similarly taken positive steps in the past two or three years. I pay tribute to him and to the people whom he has appointed, such as Miss Cherie Ehrlich, to develop an equal opportunities policy in training, recruitment and the representation of views.
If the Minister of State says that that is the future road for broadcasting and that he will help the ITC which, in the form of the IBA, is concerned about this matter, we shall welcome it enormously. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say. Obviously, I reserve the right to comment on any of his caveats. I am delighted that he will accept the new clause.

Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for curtailing his remarks to allow me to say my piece. It is appropriate that we should put in a statutory arrangement for an equal opportunities policy. I envisage that the ITC will be placed under a duty to attach conditions to the relevant licences, requiring the licensees to pursue an equal opportunities policy in matters of employment and promotion and to review it from time to time. That would enable the ITC to ask applicants how they would propose to fulfil that condition. Once a licensee has been appointed, the requirement to pursue an equal opportunities policy would be enforceable in the same way as other licence conditions. That is the basic statement of intent.
The new clause should also apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national independent radio stations are concerned, because they will be national organisations. I propose that the new clause should apply to the Radio Authority in so far as national commercial radio stations are concerned.
On the limited number of derogations, we should apply the new requirement to those television licensees to whom positive obligations are already applied elsewhere in the Bill—that is to say, Channels 3, 4 and 5 and the domestic satellites services. I do not see the same strong case for applying it to those licensees who are subject only to negative consumer protection requirements—that is to say, non-domestic satellite service licensees and the licensable programme services.
That still means that we embrace all the main structures of British broadcasting, but we are adding a further positive requirement to those to whom we have already decided to attach positive requirements. I do not think hat we would be justified in adding this positive requirement to those services in which we seek only to have protective rather than positive requirements in other respects.
I am not sure that that model would carry over well to independent producers. The ITC and the Radio Authority would be in a direct regulatory relationship with their licensees and would therefore be able to monitor compliance with the equal opportunities condition. but their relationship with independent producers would be much more distant. That is why I would not propose to extend the new clause to independent producers. I do not think that that substantially derogates from my acceptance of the principle that, to those major broadcasting organisations to whom positive programming principles are attached, this will be a further additional positive requirement enforceable in exactly the same way as every other part of the obligations into which they will enter.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a full-hearted response to what he has said. I am grateful to him for bringing forward the new clause. I hereby undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause in the terms that I have described. The House will have an opportunity to monitor the accuracy of the new clause when it returns.

Mr. Fisher: The House will appreciate and applaud the terms in which the Minister has responded to the debate, and the positive way in which he has accepted the new clause. I particularly welcome the extension to national commercial radio stations and to employment and promotion. Is training included as a subsection of employment? It would be extremely difficult to push forward equal opportunities in employment and management without having it as a positive requirement in training. That is certainly the experience of the BBC.
The Minister did not mention the more difficult, contentious and less tangible subject of representation in programmes. That is an important element, certainly for groups of people such as those with disabilities. Very few of us can think of programmes that give a balanced view of what it is like to suffer from cerebral palsy or spina bifida. If such matters are included in broadcasting programmes, they are a matter of curiosity because there is a different view of the world if one has disabilities—there is a disability culture.
That is difficult for us who are lucky enough to be able-bodied to accept, but it is an important point. I appreciate that representation is difficult and intangible. but I hope that the Minister of State will think about this matter when he is drafting his response, because, good though his response on employment and promotion was, training and representation are important matters. The Minister of State did not say whether he will accept our point that, if it is to be effective, it must be monitored.

Mr. Mellor: indicated assent.

Mr. Fisher: I am glad that the Minister is nodding that that is the case.
I understand the point that the Minister of State made about the difference between positive and protective. There is a distinction. I am glad that it will carry over to Channels 3, 4 and 5 and BSB.
Again, it was a point of contention in Committee. We do not see why Sky Television, as a non-domestic carrier, should be in a different position. It is illogical that it should not have the same requirements. If it is considered important for one, the same conditions should apply to the other.
It was interesting to hear the point that the Minister made about producers. Many independent producers have, in their own production companies, been at the forefront of equal opportunities. There are several all-women independent production companies doing extremely good work. The Minister is saying, by excluding them, that 25 per cent. of production shall, in a couple of years or so, be excluded from the provisions of the imaginative move that he is about to make. I hope that he will have second thoughts about that.
Having made those small points for him and his advisers to ponder when they draft the clause, and having been delighted with the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 17

TAKEOVERS OF CHANNEL 3 LICENSEES

`.—( ) The ITC shall only allow a takeover of a Channel 3 licensee by another person or body when it is satisfied that the full licence obligations can be met by the prospective licence-holder.

( ) No such takeovers will be allowed within the three years following the licence award except where the incumbent is unable to fulfil the licence obligations.'.—[Mr. Bill Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 34—Revocation of Channel 3 licence on takeover during limited period.
'3—'(1) Where—

(a) a licence to provide Channel 3 service is awarded before 1993 to a body corporate, and
(b) it appears to the Commission that, within the period of two years beginning with that award, a person who at the time of the award did not control the body has acquired control of it.

the Commission shall revoke the licence by notice given to the holder of the licence and taking effect forthwith or on a date specified in the notice not being more than six months after the giving of that notice.
(2) Upon such revocation any security given by the holder under section 18 shall be forfeited to the Commission.
(3) Every licence which is awarded before 1993 to a corporate body to provide a Channel 3 service shall include such conditions as the Commission consider necessary or expedient to secure that they are given—
(a) such advance notice of any proposal of which that body becomes aware and which if carried into effect would—

(i) affect shareholdings in the body.
(ii) affect its directors, or
(iii) be in any other way relevant to the control of it.

as is necessary or expedient to enable the Commission to ascertain that such an acquisition of control as is mentioned in subsection (1) is likely to occur, and
(b) immediate notice of any such acquisition of control.

(4) In this section "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.
Amendment No. 42, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out from '36(1)(b);' to end of line 33.
Amendment No. 577, in page 3, line 35, after 'person', insert—
'for two years after the grant of a licence and subsequently not'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'and such consent shall not be given before 31st December 1995'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'and such consent shall not be granted before 1st January 1994 unless it is agreed to by the person holding the licence'.
Government amendment No. 229.
Amendment No. 484, in clause 5 page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(b) In subsections (3) and (5A) "control" has the same meaning as in Schedule 2.'.
Amendment No. 483, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—
'(5A) Every licence shall include conditions such as the Commission consider necessary to ensure that where—

(a) the holder of the licence is a body corporate, and
(b) for a period of three years from the award of the licence

the Commission shall have the authority to take whatever steps they consider necessary and expedient to prevent changes in the persons having control over or interests in the body where they think appropriate.'.
Government amendment No. 418.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and I tabled new clause 17 because we were concerned with the changes that are taking place and the effect that they could have—I make no apology for saying this—on regional broadcasting. Being Scots, we have taken a somewhat parochial view of what is happening in our area.
The increased emphasis in the Bill on quality and regional service will be wasted if any company seeking to take over a licence-holder is not obliged to fulfil the licence obligations. It will be expensive in time, effort and money to prepare a licence application. If predators can launch a take over bid immediately after the award, there will be a strong incentive not to bid but to wait and see who is the successful applicant, and then attempt a takeover.
After each franchise round in the past it has taken a considerable time for new companies to become properly established and fully to contribute to the service. The dislocation would be greatly exacerbated if companies were fighting off takeovers or being taken over in the early years of their lives.
Unless there is a moratorium on takeovers—three years appears to be about right—there could be chaos in Channel 3 and a consequent loss of service to viewers and advertisers. So we in the north of Scotland, who are serviced by Grampian Television as our local ITV station —my constituency is serviced substantially by Grampian, although Scottish Television is also concerned—are worried lest we suffer a loss of service. We are anxious to avoid the uncertainty that could result from an early takeover attempt following the award of a licence.

Mr. Maclennan: The new clause follows closely the debates we had in Committee in which we drew attention to the predicament that would flow from a speedy takeover by incoming companies and the difficulty that would face the regulatory authority if that were to happen. Indeed, the IBA and its chairman have drawn attention to the problem from the beginning. They recently said that they would


regard a moratorium of a year as the absolute minimum necessary to enable them to do their job properly. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), whose involvement in these matters everyone in the north of Scotland will no doubt welcome, is right to say that it should be longer than one year.

Mr. Mellor: I met the chairman of the IBA this morning to clarify the position of the IBA on certain points. He regards 12 months as a desirable moratorium limit, not as a period for which he is asking as a second or third best. I understand that, in his view, 12 months is long enough. In other words, it is not his view of a minimum period —he would prefer longer—but his view of the right period.

Mr. Maclennan: I am happy to rephrase my remarks to take account of what Mr. Russell told the Minister about one year being sufficient. I believe that it is not enough and although I defer to Mr. Russell in many matters—I have no doubt that he has given the issue much thought, not only in terms of what is right but what is achievable from the Government; perhaps he regards one year as a prudent period for which to ask now—the hon. Member for Tayside, North is nearer the reality, which is that the matter will not be settled satisfactorily after only one year.
The selection process which will begin when the bids are invited is complex. It involves difficult valuations by the regulatory authority, and the bidding companies will be put to enormous expenditure of time, effort and money for the preparation of their bids. To have all of that set at naught by a predatory takeover within a year of being awarded the franchise would seem to make nonsense not only of the regulatory process but of the prospects of achieving an orderly approach to regional television and of sustaining quality beyond the initial bid.
Not only is Grampian Television interested in this matter—Grampian has played a notable part in seeking to amend the Bill—but all companies in the 15 regions have an interest in achieving initial stabiity, and I hope that that will be recognised in the Government's response to the new clause. It is imperative that a period longer than a year is acknowledged. I proposed two years, but it is reasonable for Conservative Members to wish to extend the effectiveness of regulation beyond two years, and I shall he happy to support them.

Mr. George Walden: The new clause goes wider than my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) believes. Although I sympathise with his regional concerns, his proposal deals also with the general issue of quality.
When I last spoke on these issues, the Minister of State accused me of being rather free in my use of adjectives. I have a few more adjectives to use tonight. He has done a superlative job with some unpromising material. By that I refer not to his colleagues in the Government but to the original White Paper with which he was lumbered. I do not know how that came about. Perhaps he had a Pauline conversion in the Committee Room, induced by the heat of the television lights. He may have had some internal illumination. Or he may all the time have been a secret, closet Reithian.
The most important thing is that the Bill is much better now than it was originally. I was glad to note that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister encouraged the setting up

of a classical music radio station which is an example of interventionism, elitism, is ideologically indefensible and is, of course, absolutely right. I take that as an example of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's flexibility and realism. By making the changes that he has made, he has set a Bill which was originally standing on its head on its feet. He has done that with enormous cleverness and without losing his balance. That makes it all the more regrettable that on this important point the Government should give the appearance of holding out.
Let us consider the practical circumstances of someone who has just won a franchise on the basis of a guaranteed level of quality. The next task would be to elaborate a programme schedule to set up the service. If on the day after the company won the franchise it received a telephone call saying that there was to be a bid for the franchise that has just been won, its attention would immediately be transferred from the task in hand to fighting off that bid. What is more, in the commercial world as it is, I expect that that company would cast a quick eye over its programme schedules to see where it might cut corners on quality, thereby pleasing the shareholders, in order to ensure its position in the coming takeover battle. That is one reason why I say that takeover bids always end up having implications for quality.
On the two grounds that the company would have its attention diverted from the task of setting up a quality service by a predatory takeover bid and that it might be tempted to dilute its quality to appeal to a bigger mass audience, I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to allow a moratorium of, not one year—perhaps three years is too long—but at least two years. We are in new territory and we must do everything possible to give sufficient time for new companies that win franchises to prove themselves.
The ITC will also be in new territory. With all due deference to Mr. George Russell, it will take it more than a year to establish with any confidence whether a newly franchised company is living up to the quality mark. Only after that length of time could the ITC judge whether the predatory takeover company was in a position to continue the established level of broadcasting of the franchised holder.
For all the reasons that I have given, I believe that we need a two-year moratorium on takeovers. I read carefully the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to the forum organised by the Campaign for Quality Television. I noted that in defence of his decision not to go for a moratorium he talked about the need to get rid of mustiness, to introduce a little competition and, to use his phrase, to stir the pot a little. There is a difference between stirring the pot a little and holding out a pot of jam in front of a wasp's nest. That is one of the dangers that will confront new franchise holders and yet another reason for imposing a moratorium.
I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his praise of the Campaign for Quality Television, about which he said some kind words at the forum to which I referred. It is not often in the House that we have reason to commend pressure groups. Often their tactics are more and more questionable and arouse more revulsion than attention. In this case, as my hon. and learned Friend graciously said in his speech, the Campaign for Quality Television has been a quality campaign. My hon. and learned Friend has listened carefully to its arguments and


accepted some of them. He is to be congratulated on that. On this matter, too, he should take the views of that pressure group seriously.
Yet again, I come back to the question of quality in a broader framework. We are in new territory. We need time for the new arrangements to settle down. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister said tonight that Channel 3 will be a notch down. I notice that a few months ago he was talking about it being a few notches down from public service broadcasting. Evidently there is some uncertainty about how many notches down the new arrangements will be. Since the beginning, the Government have been wrong, but are less wrong now, in failing to recognise the implications of their proposals for Channel 3 for the BBC. We do not know whether Channel 3 is to be one notch down or a few notches down. How many will depend to some extent on the future of the franchise companies. That in turn will depend on whether they have time to stabilise. That in turn will depend on how quickly takeover bids come in.
All the matters that I have raised tie up. What was the point of the Committee laboriously and commendably establishing a delicate structure of checks and balances if with one telephone call and a pile of money someone could come in from the side and knock down the whole house of cards? That could happen.
I appeal to the Government to take a broad and cautious view. They should consider the matter in the round. I finish with one thought. However well the Government and the Minister do their jobs and however well the Committee has done its job, we are in new territory and there is a grave danger of a dilution of standards, whatever we do. We all know the reasons for that. I doubt whether the Minister of State goes along with some of the brassy talk about a new era in television. He is too intelligent a man to believe all that. Therefore, he must keep an eye all the time on every means of shoring up standards. That is why I agree with the new spirit of the Bill.
I hope that the Government will also have a moratorium on their more adventurous plans for the BBC. We need a moratorium for the BBC too. If the Government start talking about doing away with the licence system or changing the regime at the BBC in other fancy ways, they could set off that drift downwards of which we are already in danger because of the implications of modern technology. The Government should view the new clause in that broader way and take into account the implications for quality, remembering that quality has a great deal to do with stability, whether it is a moratorium on takeovers or the stability of the BBC.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). We are dealing with something which is fundamental and which, if it goes wrong, will affect quality. In all my speeches in earlier debates on the White Paper I said that this is a matter of quality and that quality must be sustained and shored up at all stages. The new clause is fundamental in the sense that if a company that had won a franchise could be taken over by another company the whole process of granting that franchise would be negatived. All the standards that had been set could be put at naught. That is why this is

such a fundamental matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly said, it is one that has particular regional implications because smaller companies are more likely to be subject to predators. Therefore, it is not just stability and maintenance of quality that matters, but the continuity of regional elements after the franchise has been granted.
8.30 pm
Whether the moratorium is one year or three years is a matter for debate. I would favour nearer three years because one year does not give time, after a new licence has been won, to achieve stability and continuity and, therefore, at least two years, preferably three, would be right. Let us never forget that not only quality would suffer, but so would the service given to a locality and the people who lived in it if there were uncertainty and the ownership of the station and the company were in doubt.
I speak for those who live in some of the regions of this country where the population is more scattered. We want continuity, quality and stability. I do not believe that the Bill gives that, so I strongly support the new clause.

Mr. Tony Banks: In his usual authoritative and perceptive way, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) put his finger straight on it—because it is quality which is what a moratorium is there to protect. He was right in saying that in Committee the Minister of State did a good job. We said that ad nauseam. The number of times we were forced to compliment the Minister on his proposals became embarrassing. The Bill was eminently improvable and, unlike some of his harder, less cerebral, colleagues on the Front Bench—excluding the present Minister, of course—he showed himself to be both imaginative and understanding of what broadcasting was about and what was needed.
Although we have said that the Bill is still not the one that we would choose, it is certainly much better than the one that started out in Committee. I still feel that if the Tory Whips had allowed the hon. Member for Buckingham to sit on the Committee rather than deliberately excluding him, it might have been even better than it is now. The hon. Member was absolutely correct in what he said about the moratorium.
The Minister of State did a good job and we had the clear impression that his idea of heaven would be rushing from a Chelsea victory at Stamford Bridge to a Pavarotti concert. Certainly both subjects came up in Committee on a regular basis and perhaps his absence from the Dispatch Box at present means that Pavarotti is singing somewhere outside.
I find myself in the odd position of supporting the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It is not an experience that I have had before and I doubt that I shall ever have it again. I know that the hon. Member spent more time talking about regional aspects, but the quality argument is essential. Although we have established a quality threshold, which was very much welcomed because there is not going to be a Dutch auction for new franchises, it is possible that the large players will stand back while the lesser bidders go in for much lower quality than the large bidders would have done if they had gone in during the original round. The franchise may be awarded on quality but, in relative terms, it will be of a lower standard than if the larger bidders had gone in. Once the franchise has been awarded, the big boys will come in


immediately afterwards and snap up the new franchise holders. However, they would be coming in at a much lower quality level than they would have been forced to offer if they had entered into the original bidding. That is why the moratorium is absolutely essential.
The moratorium will protect the Government's own guarantee about the quality threshold. Therefore, the Government must accept the amendment or, if not this one, one of the others—because there is a range from which they can choose. There must be some sort of moratorium in the Bill or their arguments about a quality threshold will be set at naught, or at least seriously undermined.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that George Russell—or St. George, as he began to be known in Committee—said that one year would do. I think that he is right, and that it could be that George Russell was exercising a degree of self-censorship and decided to opt for the lowest figure that he thought the Government were likely to accept.
If George Russell were given the chance to look at the matter objectively, he would be more likely to agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North, as I would, than go for something less than three years. That would at least give the new franchise holder the chance to meet adequately the quality standards set in the original bid. If there are predators or potential predators they will have to come into the first process. There would not be much point in their standing back for three years because if the new franchise holders are successful it will be that much more difficult to take them over and, if the predators try to do so, the asking price will be that much higher.
Therefore, for all those reasons, but particularly because I want to protect the Government's acceptance that there should be a quality threshold, I shall support the proposal of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.

Sir Hector Monro: There is a fair degree of unanimity in the House that the principle of the new clause is what hon. Members wish to see in the Bill. I dare say that, in his reply, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say that if he cannot accept one of the new clauses tonight the Bill may be changed in another place.
In declaring a small interest in a television company, I wish to say that this is a matter of standards, takeovers and uncertainty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, why should we bother about the initial auction if a takeover would be almost inevitable a matter of months afterwards?
I am particularly interested in regional television and live in the Border Television area. While it is not afraid because it would not anticipate any takeover from Grampian Television or Scottish Television, it would certainly he worried about large companies in the south. The balance of programmes is important in regional stations, particularly in areas such as Border, which has to balance the Scottish and English content because it serves both sides of the border and the Isle of Man. Its experience of programme content is very valuable and cannot be lightly thrown away or overtaken by events such as a takeover by a major company in the south.
Therefore, it is important, and reflects the tenor of the debate, that we should work towards a moratorium of at least three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, in the first year everyone will be settling down and nobody will be clear about the

way forward. I should have thought that three years was the very least period in which a company could prepare and run its programmes effectively. It should do it for that period without the worry of a predator breathing down its neck. It should not have to spend more time fighting off a takeover than providing the programmes everybody wants.
We should support the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and ask the Minister to consider it carefully. We are all speaking with a degree of experience. I should have thought that the House would accept that the period of two or perhaps three years—which I support—should be the period after which a takeover was permitted.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). May I point out that there is a range of options? I support a three-year moratorium after the bid has been decided, so as to give some certainty and to encourage television companies to invest in quality production. It costs much money to make television programmes and films. If there is any hesitation, investment will be delayed.
The cost of bidding will be expensive. Much paperwork will be involved. People will have to prepare the bid and provide the documentation set out in clause 17. They may want to take advantage of clause 17(3), which refers to exceptional circumstances, and concentrate on the quality threshold which they feel that they can surmount better than other companies. It may be expensive to set out for the ITC, and subsequently for the Minister, the documentation, including perhaps examples of programes, to show that clause 17(3) can be used. Expenditure of several thousand pounds may be incurred.
I raised the question in Committee because trade union negotiators have been told bluntly that various television companies have been building up war chests so that, when the Bill becomes law, they can make a bid to capture the franchise. The Minister said that he would relax the provisions on the performance bond so that large amounts were not tied up in bidding and in the effective enforcement of the bid thereafter.
If there is no moratorium, a company, having built up money in the war chest to succeed in the bid, and having succeeded, is likely to retain funds to fend off any predatory bid which may be in the offing. Without a moratorium, funds will be put into defending the company rather than into the production of television. Without a moratorium, viewers will be denied decent quality programmes while a board room battle is fought. We know that board room battles over prominent, so-called prestige companies are often extremely expensive, with both sides inserting newspaper advertisements and employing public relations firms. Sometimes there are investigations into the circumstances in which bids and counter bids are made.
Having won the franchise, a company will want to fight off any predatory bid and will campaign accordingly. That means that it will need much money. It is absurd for the House to pass legislation setting out a fairly complicated and expensive procedure, and then for the Minister to be embroiled in an argument, best summarised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) when he spoke on Second Reading, about maintaining the quality of programming. We should relish what he said about the Bill


meaning that the Government like trash, that they believe the people like trash and that they would give them trash. We must give all credit to the Minister; in Committee he gave the impression of complete disdain for trash. In exchanges, he was sympathetic to the need for quality to be taken into account as a factor in the "exceptional circumstances" clause 17(3).
Having gone through the battle and having won recognition from the Government that quality is an important component and that there are grave dangers in legislating sloppily—with money counting and quality being pushed to one side—it would be absurd to allow the removal of a moratorium. If there is no moratorium, there will be a drain of funds from the picture on the television screen. That is where we want the money to be spent. That is the basic purpose of a television franchise. That is what a television company is dedicated to and what it will be telling the ITC and the Minister that it can do best.
8.45 pm
We are not ruling out the possibility of competition, but the marketplace will not provide the quality that is necessary. A company cannot invest millions of pounds in quality television programmes if it is apprehensive about whether it will get any transmission at the end of the production period. A company has to invest over 12, or even 18, months to plan, produce and make ready for transmission serious programmes of reasonable quality. A successful bidder must be given a guarantee that he can carry out his commitment free from the worry and anxiety of predatory bids for a period of three years.
In Committee, everyone agreed that a range of talents goes into the production of a television programme. The HTV studios in Cardiff and Bristol are making 112 employees of all grades redundant next Monday because of the war chest syndrome of building up funds. All those people want to make television programmes, but they will be denied the opportunity because of the circumstances being imposed on them by HTV management. It will be a grim development if talented and able people, with skills in writing, acting, editing, photography, set building and so forth, are denied the opportunity to use their skills because bidding is placed in jeopardy by the possibility of predatory bidding.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take notice of the representations from both sides of the Chamber which would ensure continuity, commitment and decent television programmes.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I associate myself with the splendid new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and also with the remarks of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members. I wish to speak particularly to amendments Nos 484 and 483.
I presume that the whole idea of the Bill is to get some money into the Treasury and at the same time to get high quality programmes for the consumer. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a low bid of £50 million was accepted because no other bidders came forward. Let us assume that a group of people got together as a consortium in the Channel Islands, and that, as the successful licensee was about to buy a bottle of champagne at the bar, the consortium made a hostile bid of £150

million. I cannot believe that the Treasury would be pleased if it had to forgo about £100 million because the Bill allowed that sort of thing to happen—and it would happen if there was no moratium on hostile bids. I have an interest in Television South West, which has a fine reputation for quality programmes. It is worried that there will be only one bid and that a consortium, rather like the ring in the antique market, will get together and bid it out of business, and that the shareholders will feel obliged to accept.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is precisely my fear, but I suppose that there is another scenario. It is that the franchise holder who is doing the bidding might be not the nominee but the front man for someone who comes in a little later. In other words, the company that gets the franchise would quickly pass it on to the company that it knows is waiting. It would be not a predatory but a collusive hid, and it would enable the original franchise holder to get the licence slightly cheaper than he would otherwise have done.

Mr. Steen: There are endless combinations of what could happen. That shows that, without a moratorium, many nasty things could happen that would not be good for the Government or for the principle behind the Bill which has been accepted by most of us. The Minister of State has persuaded even those who have doubts that it is the best thing since sliced bread. He would have persuaded us even more if he had got the moratorium matter right.
I shall now deal with the logistics; I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I get them wrong. As I understand the timetable, the new franchises will be awarded in the summer of 1991, although we do not have the exact date. The old franchise will not end until December 1992. There is an 18-month overlap and, as things stand, if the existing television company does not win the licence, it will have to continue for 18 months while the new television company is waiting in the wings doing its bit to undermine confidence. How will that system work, with the old television company winding down over 18 months and the new one waiting in the wings?
If the Minister accepted a moratorium of three years, he would have 18 months from the summer of 1991 until December 1992, and once the licence had been granted, at least the successful television company would have another 18 months to do the job without fearing that it would be at risk from any hostile bid. That would give shareholders a chance to evaluate the effectiveness of the company and whether it was putting into practice the quality programmes that it told the ITC it would produce.
The Minister has given much to the Bill, and has made it a great deal better than when it started in Committee. His acceptance of the modest amendment tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) or some of the other amendments could make it even better. That is what is required. Our amendment is a modest alteration, aimed not at crippling market forces but at giving a little leeway, so that those forces can work in the most effective way for the benefit of the consumer rather than just for the benefit of financiers.
I am sure that the Government would not wish the Treasury to lose money if there was some sort of argy-bargy. I join my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in urging the Government to make some friendly noise which would show us that they feel that something


needs to be done. The points made are neither frivolous nor vexatious. They touch on serious matters and were raised by people who are anxious about the future of the franchises.

Mr. John Greenway: This is one of the most important new clauses that we shall debate. I am sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was not with us in Committee because his speech demonstrated eloquence and a workmanlike approach. I shall not try to copy that eloquence because I could not.
We considered many amendments in Committee and have still to deal with some important new clauses and amendments. They try to address two issues which are related but quite distinct. First, there is the question of continuity of licence applications. It has not been said so far in this brief debate that clause 3 as drafted requires the ITC to give consent to a transfer. Amendment No. 229 relates to television and amendment No. 418 relates to radio, and we must not forget the importance of the bidding process for radio. Those two Government amendments are welcome because they strengthen the Bill's provisions about licence obligations being put into any new arrangement about transfer or takeover.
Secondly, there is the added issue of the threat to the allocation process for licences. The debate has sought to address that issue, especially in relation to Channel 3 licences. There was much debate in Committee on a key issue that has gained most attention outside the House —the allocation process, especially in relation to the need to strengthen quality. Quality has been strengthened and as the House debates other amendments hon. Members will see the extent to which that has been done. That is to the credit of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State because he has responded to representations about quality. That has created an incentive for bidders to drive up quality through the bidding process. It is crucial that that quality is not undermined by prospective broadcasters sitting out the first round—the bidding process—and then getting their sums right through an immediate takeover.
There has been much debate about whether the moratorium on takeovers should be for a year, two years, three years or some other time. It is crucial that a prospective broadcaster should understand that the only immediate means of obtaining a licence is through the bidding process. That is the issue that we must agree, and that is why there is a strong case for a limited moratorium. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) pointed out that the allocation process was likely to be completed at least a year or 18 months before the operation of the new licences. New clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and which I support, was proposed by the Independent Television Companies Association Ltd. It proposes a moratorium for the period up to the operation of the new licences, and then for 12 months. I was encouraged by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's comment, in an earlier intervention, that that is also the view of George Russell and of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
It is crucial that potential broadcasters who wish to obtain a television franchise can only obtain a licence immediately—the same would apply to the new independent radio stations—by winning the franchise allocation. Otherwise, there is a threat that all the good work done in Committee to strengthen the bidding process

and to drive up quality will be undermined. A moratorium and takeovers of a limited nature could be the way to resolve that problem.

9 pm

Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State must regard himself as being in a difficult position. He has seen so many changes to the Bill in Committee as he has gradually moved from the first flamboyant gesture of an open-ended option for franchise. However, he should not be too discouraged if the idea of a moratorium is raised now, as it is consistent with the Government's present position.
A new television structure would be fragile. There can be no doubt that the market in 1991–94 will be intensely more competitive for media operations. Channel 4 is already coming on hot and strong, and Channel 5 is due shortly. There will be easy money to be made by companies that succeed in the auctioning process.
There will be real difficulties in the competition for the quality that every hon. Member wishes to see. The competition between those that provide the money for the programme makers will be severe. The scale of commitment of a successful bidder will be greater than that of previous franchise holders, who were in a cosy, semi-monopolistic world—although they had severe difficulties in establishing their regional networks.
The Bill contains various ways to protect the system, with references to small stations, large stations and the cross-ownership of media investments. I dislike media investment in television companies; I think that they should attempt to restrict themselves to obtaining new capital, and not second-guess other media owners. There will be a great deal of cross-fertilisation between companies.
The auction system will provide a series of under-bidders, who believe that they have as much right as anyone else to acquire a franchise. There will be a natural interest in attempting to make an abortive bid more successful. That is endemic to the auction process, and legitimately gives rise to the moratorium procedure.
I remind the House that it is not the under-bidder from the United Kingdom about whom we should be concerned; it will be various EEC bids that can be easily funded to provide a broader interest in how United Kingdom franchises will be awarded. Those EEC organisations have a great deal of experience, and have been acquiring United Kingdom companies for some time —not excluding the water companies—and they will be searching for ways to get in on the act.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister should accept the principle of a moratorium. The scale of it is, I suspect, a matter of fine judgment. After all, it will be rough if the new company produces but one year's profit and then becomes vulnerable. It is the product—whether it is a good piece of television or a prize-winning exhibit—that those organisations will be looking to buy. The asset of a television company is not just the franchise on the region; it is the selling capacity of the creative minds in that company that provide programmes to be sold abroad that provide profitable investments. That too will have to be considered.
The one year suggested by the chairman of the ITC may not be long enough to protect the fragility of the system but, when all is said and done, I am sure that the


moratorium will be consistent with what has gone before. But it must be interpreted with great care because it must protect a system which ultimately has to gain enough strength to stand on its own feet.

Mr. Corbett: There was such a moment as this, as the Minister and other members of the Committee will recall, on 25 January, the night of the great storm. The thunderbolts were clattering against the roof when we had a debate on religious broadcasting and the wisdom of requiring Channel 3 licensees to carry some religious programmes—in other words, to retain the "must carry" rule on religious programmes. The Minister listened to all of us, as he has tonight, and not only did he say that he accepted the sense of the Committee on religious programmes but, almost without being asked, children's programmes as well.
There was another such night when, after a long and enjoyable debate on the exceptional circumstances clause, after unanimity on both sides, the Minister left us with the thought that he would act as the Committee's messenger and talk to others with fingers in that particular pie to see whether changes should be made. We shall come to those changes later.
Not one hon. Member who has spoken in the debate on the moratorium has spoken against it. The principle is agreed on both sides. Even that nice Mr. Russell wants it, let alone others. The only arguement between us is from when it should date. The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others pins that down to 31 December 1995 to allow two years from when the first programmes were shown. We thought that there was some sense in allowing the programmes to be seen. Nobody will argue about whether that period should date from when the licences are awarded by the ITC or from when the programmes begin. An interesting point was made about the 18 months' spill-over period.
I always find it uncomfortable to get tangled up with market forces, but I shall allow it to this extent. It is difficult to say what the balance sheet of a company which is awarded the licence, hopefully by the summer of next year, will show before it has a single programme on the air. It will have earned no revenue from its programmes. It may be that, as part of the process of getting its programmes together, it will be offering to make programmes for Channel 4, BSB or whoever wants to buy them, but I cannot think that that would be a serious proposition.
I do not want to labour the point, but, as the IBA has argued, it makes no sense, having gone through all the paraphernalia of the so-called quality test to check on the safety of the money and the suitability of the people behind it, when the amount of money, the sealed envelope stuff, can be counted at the same time as the quality yardsticks are being assessed—a laborious process and expensive for those who bid—if within 24 hours of all that happening and that nice Mr. Russell and his friends saying, "Okay, you have got it" it is possible for someone to make a bid for that company.
However, I believe that such a thing is unlikely to happen. My own guess is that those who aspire to take a share in an expanded British broadcasting system are as likely as not to be trying to buy their way in to the present

set-up. We know that one of the big television contractors has two rather large blocks of shares for sale. I believe, as someone who does not deal with such matters every day of the week, that it is more likely that those who aspire to a share would consider it more sensible to buy in to a company which they are advised—and there are many people in the City willing to give such advice—is likely to stand a good chance of bidding successfully for the new Channel 3 licence.
To concede the principle of a one-year moratorium from the date the licence is awarded will not cost the Government anything. I agree with Conservative Members who made the point that to do so would not be tampering with the doctrine of market forces. The Minister made it clear in Committee that this is the only time that the ITC will observe such an elaborate procedure, and that once the initial round of awarding licences is over thenceforth everything will be done via the stock exchange, by takeover. It is true that in those circumstances, whether the takeover is friendly or hostile, at the end of the day the ITC will have to approve those who seek to acquire the licence and, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, stand in the shoes of those to whom it was originally awarded.
Given the one-off nature of the ITC's initial task, how much more important it is that the applicants who are required to observe that process are given a degree of initial protection so that they can show how well they can live up to the programme and financing promises that persuaded the Commission to award the licence. The logic of that argument stands supreme. No one can lose from such an arrangement. The Government cannot lose in terms of their aspirations, and nor can the ITC. The companies which make successful bids neither gain nor lose, but in the critical early period between the award of the licences and the programmes going on screen there will be a measure of protection.
That is important not only for the companies, but, more significantly, for the viewer. The Minister and his colleagues have spoken of the need for stability in the system, arguing that no one wants to see violent changes in what is shown on our television screens. If there is no moratorium, there is at least a risk of the transition being more difficult to achieve.
I hope that the Minister will say that, on the back of the unanimous view expressed in this debate, he will at least reconsider. I suggest that he must go further, for there is a real wish for a moratorium. The bottom line is a one-year moratorium, though I have made it perfectly clear that I would like it to be for a much longer period. Nevertheless, we could all settle on a one-year moratorium.
Unless the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) can secure a commitment with a period tied to it, I urge him to press his new clause to a Division. To do so would not be for the purpose of humiliating the Minister, who knows that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends seek to do that, any more than do his own right hon. and hon. Friends. Instead, such an expression of the views of the House will give him an added argument when he consults the Home Secretary and other ministerial colleagues. I understand that in the Government today it is all a matter of listening and responding, at least in respect of other matters, so why should the same not apply to the issue now before us? It would be right to indicate before the proceedings are over that such was the eloquence of Conservative Back Benchers and the


Opposition on the issue that the Minister felt it would be right to table the proposed amendment in another place. He will know, without my saying it, that if he does not say that, it will happen anyway when another place considers the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has laid an appealing prospect before me. I am glad that we have a cameo appearance from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who, as a brief relaxation from foreign affairs, has resumed his interest in the Home Office —and I do not say that churlishly, as he is most welcome here.
I commend the two Government amendments in the group. Amendment 229 deals with an issue raised in Committee—it will require the ITC to satisfy itself that the requirements of the licence would be upheld throughout the reporting period before giving consent to a transfer of the licence. Strictly speaking, the amendments are necessary because ITC consent is already required, but I gave an undertaking that we would etch that more deeply into the Bill, and that is what we have done. Amendment No. 418 makes the same arrangements for the Radio Authority.
Turning to the substance of this matter, obviously I listened with care to large parts of the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) reported to me on those speeches that, sadly, I missed while taking a short break. I am aware that all hon. Members who have spoken favour a moratorium; that point is not lost on me. However, the other side of the case should not go by default, and I shall briefly outline it.
The ITV network has in the past been protected from takeovers. It is not clear whether that has been of benefit to ITV or whether some of the complacent and inward-looking characteristics of the system—for in—stance, its inability until recent times to come to terms with some of the changes in industrial relations, and some practices that are common outside—owe a great deal to the protectionist environment within which it has been able to operate.
It is interesting that the IBA has announced its intention to permit takeovers of existing companies. We know that leading shareholders of one of the biggest companies are looking for an opportunity to sell. It is likely that takeovers of existing franchise holders will be permitted from the time that the Bill gets Royal Assent. The issue we must consider is whether we should have a stop-go cycle and whether, having allowed takeovers, we should enter a period of moratorium and, if so, whether it should be for one, two or three years.
If—it is quite a large if—my colleagues felt there were any attractions in a moratorium, with respect to the House, I do not imagine that they would want to go further than the period suggested by the IBA, which was 12 months. To be frank, it is higly questionable whether they would want to go that far. The whole issue turns on an evalution of some of the key points.
Hon. Members have expressed the fear that the consequence of allowing takeovers would be that new owners of companies could get around obligations entered into by their predecessors. That will not be possible under the terms of the Bill—first, because the ITC will have to give its consent to a transfer of the franchise. If it deems

that the new owners are not fit and proper persons, or are otherwise unsuitable, it will be able to rule them out of court. Nothing could be more pointless than a successful takeover of a franchise which was then whipped away by the regulatory body.

Mr. Walden: I understand the logic of my right hon. and learned Friend's point and it looks fairly convincing on paper. He made the same case at the forum that discussed the matter. However, the ITC will also be a new body exploring uncharted territory. It will have to make an essentially subjective judgment in awarding the franchise. It will then have to make a second subjective judgment about how well the franchise holder is carrying out the franchise and a third subjective judgment about how likely those who take over are to implement that franchise at second hand. So we are dealing with three levels of subjectivity. My fear is that in quality terms they will lead inevitably in one direction and it will not be upwards.

Mr. Mellor: I expect that the ITC will have already sharpened its skills by failing a number of applicants on the quality threshold. It will simply be asked to bring to bear the same thinking.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) reminded us that the new purchaser of the franchise stands in the shoes of his predecessor and will be held to all the obligations that his predecessor entered into, with all the new array of powers which the ITC has, and which the IBA does not have, to enforce those franchise arrangements. Those are real safeguards.
Some are concerned that the effect of a takeover bid would be to weaken the ability of a company to carry out its programming commitments, because time and energy would be devoted to resisting the takeover. I am not saying that there are any absolute truths in the matter; I respect many of those who made that point, and I do not reject that argument out of hand, but in most sophisticated, well-structured companies there are those who are charged with the responsibility of programme making and planning and there are those who are responsible for the overall management issues. That is a separate function.
We have to be careful not to exaggerate and over-emphasise the problems of takeovers, which, after all, are part and parcel of every other part of the free enterprise system in Britain. We should be careful not to engage in too much special pleading on behalf of the broadcasting industry which is just one part of what we hope will be an increasingly competitive sector.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I did not expect that argument to find much appeal among Opposition Members, and I have not been disappointed. I give way to my fellow Chelsea supporter.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a question of that argument not finding much favour among the Opposition; it does not find very much favour among Conservative Members either. Surely the Minister must be impressed by the fact that some hard-nosed free marketeers are sitting behind him—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) being the classic example, and the man who moved the new clause seeking the longest moratorium—and not one single voice save his own has been raised against the idea of a moratorium. Surely, if the will of the House means anything to him, he must give us some moratorium.

Mr. Mellor: I am not honour-bound to provide a balance by having a little squeak on the other side of the case. I certainly understand that some of those who have spoken would give relatively short shrift to the argument that I advance, but I must bear that with fortitude.

Mr. Cryer: It is precisely because we know about the free market system that hon. Members on both sides of the House have presented that argument. The Minister has not addressed a matter which has been raised repeatedly: what will be the position if a successful television bidder decides —as they will be perfectly entitled to do—to resist a predatory takeover, when to do so would necessitate spending a great deal of money? Would that not be perforce at the expense of the quality of television, and should not the moratorium be given to enable franchise holders to demonstrate the promises that they made in their original submissions?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise that the arguments are tending to be against takeovers generally. If they were accepted, they would be valid whether there were to be a moratorium period or not. They go to the root of the question whether there should be takeovers. The present ITV set-up does not make a very compelling test-bed for the proposition that a competitive, free enterprise community operates better when freed from the rigours of takeovers.
As I said in Committee, a number of observers of the broadcasting scene who are certainly not active supporters of my side of the political debate have long asserted that what has been needed to pep up the system is the ability for there to be takeovers and that many of the rest of our proposals would not be needed if we permitted that to happen. Obviously, the question of takeovers is part and parcel of the way in which a new dynamic is introduced into companies and into industries. Many sectors of the economy have greatly benefited from that.

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman has views on issues other than the one on which he and I usually talk, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that no hon. Member from any party has spoken against the principle of takeovers this evening? We are talking merely about a moratorium. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address that issue and not get carried away down side alleys about the principle of takeovers?

Mr. Mellor: I have to dismiss that as a somewhat churlish intervention. If some of the arguments allegedly in support of a temporary cessation appear to go to the question whether there should be takeovers as such, I am perfectly entitled to point that out. The point has been registered, and it will be there for all to read that the wide range of hon. Members who chose to participate in the debate—some have great experience in these matters—all spoke in favour of the moratorium.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I am just drawing towards a happy—well, perhaps not a terribly happy—conclusion. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman who will, no doubt, drive me back to where I was before.

Mr. Maclennan: That has sometimes done the Minister good. However, I wanted to remind him of an earlier Home Office experience. There was a debate in the Chamber on another Bill about a proposal to curtail the rights of juries in serious fraud cases. On that occasion, the Home Office Minister heard, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has heard tonight, 11 voices speaking against the Government's proposal. The Minister gave the undertaking that he would consider the fact that there was unanimity of view, and very properly accepted the view of Parliament. When there has been unanimity of view from such an enormously wide spectrum of opinion, the least the Minister can do is not to set his face against what has been proposed. Perhaps that does bring him back to where he was.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has said in his own words what I was about to say in mine. I will not be deflected from doing so just because of his intervention. I have no remit to change this part of the Government's thinking tonight, and I do not say that this part of the Government's thinking will be changed. I will certainly ensure——

Mr. Tony Banks: Ask the gaffer.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is not in the Shed now; he should contain himself.

Mr. Banks: The directors' box.

Mr. Mellor: I keep an eye on him from the directors' box. Several hon. Members, many of them of considerable experience, have spoken this evening and all have spoken in one direction. I shall certainly acquaint my colleagues with that fact, and if they wish to use it to stimulate some further thinking, so be it. I am not guaranteeing that that will be the outcome, but I was invited to convey a further message and I am probably duty-bound to do so in this instance.

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not think that in all my years in the House I have ever been described as a protectionist of any kind; no one can suggest that my free market credentials have ever been in doubt. I did not table the new clause frivolously. I believe that television, the most potent communicating force known to man, is not something for which we should legislate lightly. Instead, we should consider the matter in great depth.
The remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister were constructive. Although he did not go as far as my hon. Friends and I would have liked, if he and the Government say that they are prepared to consider the matter again, I accept that assurance.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 262.

Division No. 194]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Anderson, Donald
Barron, Kevin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Battle, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Beckett, Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony






Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
McAllion, John


Bidwell, Sydney
McAvoy, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Boateng, Paul
McFall, John


Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McLeish, Henry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Madden, Max


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Corbett, Robin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Critchley, Julian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Crowther, Stan
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Morley, Elliot


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mullin, Chris


Dewar, Donald
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
Nellist, Dave


Doran, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Brien, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eadie, Alexander
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Pike, Peter L.


Fearn, Ronald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Primarolo, Dawn


Flynn, Paul
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser, John
Rogers, Allan


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


Galloway, George
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Gordon, Mildred
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grocott, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Spearing, Nigel


Hinchliffe, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Strang, Gavin


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hood, Jimmy
Turner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Vaz, Keith


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Walden, George


Hoyle, Doug
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Walley, Joan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Illsley, Eric
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Janner, Greville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Kennedy, Charles
Winnick, David


Kilfedder, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Worthington, Tony


Kirkwood, Archy
Wray, Jimmy


Leadbitter, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leighton, Ron



Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Martyn Jones.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
French, Douglas


Alexander, Richard
Fry, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Allason, Rupert
Gardiner, George


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amos, Alan
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Ashby, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Aspinwall, Jack
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Baldry, Tony
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Benyon, W.
Ground, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hague, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B 'wd)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Irvine, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Irving, Sir Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Flochford)
Jack, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamond, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
McCrindle, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David






McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudd, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Redwood, John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilshire, David


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

AWARD OF NATIONAL RADIO LICENSES

'( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast;

(2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, along with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation, which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.

(3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their applications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.

(4) The primary consideratons when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 20—Award of Channel 3 licences—
'( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of regional television services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast.
(2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, together with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.
(3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their aplications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.
(4) The primary consideration when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.
Government amendments Nos. 250 to 252.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 15, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
'(c) arrangements for public consultation specifying the manner and the time period in which public comment on the shortlisted applicants' proposals may be submitted to the Commission'.
Government amendments Nos. 115, 134, 158, 433 to 435, 438, 453, 453A, 454 to 457, 459 to 462.
Amendment No. 104, in clause 97, page 76, line 18, at end insert—
'and provide in such manner as they consider appropriate, opportunities for public comment upon the applications submitted.'.
Government amendments Nos. 463, 467 to 469.
Amendment No. 105, in clause 98, page 77, line 4, at end add—
'(d) the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated support from persons living in the area or locality to be served; or
(e) the extent to which members of shareholders of an applicant body are persons living in the area or locality to be served.'.
Government amendment No. 193.

Mr. Corbett: The new clauses provide a new and more open way of awarding the Channel 3 television and new national radio licences. They would give viewers and listeners a direct say in the consideration of applications by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority and would exactly meet the ambition of the Government, as expressed in their White Paper published in 1988. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members beyond the Bar kindly leave the Chamber or come in and join us?

Mr. Corbett: In their White Paper the Government said in paragraph 1.2:
The Government places the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy.
In the same paragraph they went on to argue that in the Government's proposed changes the
single biggest advantage will be to give the viewer and listener a greater and a greater say.
We did not hear much from the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill about how the viewer and listener would have that greater say. The new clauses offer a blueprint for achieving that Government objective, which we wholly share.
Our process for awarding Channel 3 television and national radio licences would sweep away the complicated and subjective so-called quality test and the "exceptional circumstances" arrangement. Instead, the new clauses would put into place a clear two-part test which those wanting a licence must pass. First, applicants would have to demonstrate commercial viability, technical competence, and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes that they intend to make or broadcast. That rightly puts the emphasis on what viewers and listeners can watch and listen to. Secondly, after applications have been accepted by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, listeners and viewers and their organisations will be invited to comment on what is proposed over a fixed period. Applicants will then be sent a digest of the views of listeners and viewers and asked to consider and respond to them. Where applicants wish, their programme proposals can be amended to take those views into account.
The primary consideration of the ITC and Radio Authority will be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes and the extent to which applicants have responded to public comment. In the past, we have all been critical about the opaque manner in which ITV licences were awarded. We need, and the Government say that they want, more openness. The new clauses offer one way of achieving that.
The new clauses are important because, as we discussed earlier, the ITC will probably award the next round of licences and no more. As the Minister made clear, he expects that in future takeovers will be the only route to a change of management and that the ITC will have powers to approve any such takeover. However, by and large, only the cash, rather than the nature of the service, will change by means of a takeover.
The House must get this matter right. I accept that it is a wholly new concept and one which we have developed only with the help of the Public Service Broadcasting Campaign since the Committee stage of the Bill. But there is nothing wrong with that. The Bill is of such critical importance to what viewers and listeners will be able to see and hear in the years ahead that we must consider all the alternatives, both in this House and in another place.
The new clauses score on their openness and the role that they give to what the Government call consumers and we more properly call viewers and listeners. The Minister is halfway towards that. He has welcomed the interest that produced Jazz FM and has given a heavy hint that he would like an all-classical radio station, certainly in the capital. We want to start that process a stage earlier, with the viewers and listeners in on the ground floor as the

licences are being awarded, rather than simply being given a chance to respond when a radio or television station comes on the air.
I shall not complain if the Minister does not feel able to say yea or nay tonight. If he wants to think about the matter for possible amendment later, that would be progress. I believe that the scheme that we have proposed for the award of the new Channel 3 licences and three national radio stations has greater merit. I hope that it will win support in the House.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) speaks with great sincerity on such matters, and I understand why he says what he does. I was grateful for his recognition that a criticism of the existing system is that it has been so opaque. Over the years, we have shown a genuine commitment to openness. We have already committed ourselves to, and are in the process of honouring, that commitment by writing into the Bill a number of arrangements to ensure good and proper publicity for many of the processes, so that the public can play a proper part. I recognise that a number of the amendments are couched in that spirit.
I am attracted by amendment No. 55, and while the phrase "public consultation" might have a ring about it that suggests taking things further than we would necessarily envisage, I am broadly attracted to it. 1f the hon. Member were to withdraw that amendment, I would undertake to provide another that would go most, if not all, of the way he wants to go, and we would introduce that amendment into the other place. I wish to do more than pay lip service to public consultation.
We do not agree with paragraph (e) of amendment No. 105, but we are attracted to paragraph (d); Government amendment No. 469, in the same group, effectively covers the same territory as that paragraph. There is by no means no meeting of minds.
I have a problem with new clause 18, which intends to relate to the Radio Authority but, in error, calls it the Commission. The Commission will not give any radio franchises. That is done only by the Radio Authority. We may come on to that in more detail later.
With regard to new clause 20, it is important that public opinion should be sought at various stages, but it would not be sensible to allow the applicant to modify his application in the light of public comment. That could distort and retard the award process in a way that I know the hon. Gentleman does not intend. I cannot help feeling that we want to see applicants stand or fall by their original intention and plan, and the trouble with cosmetic modifications to curry favour with the ITC that might follow from such a process is that it might further delay an already complex and lengthy process. If I am able to meet the hon. Gentleman on most, if not all, of amendment No. 55, he may feel that he has got sufficient out of the discussion to merit leaving matters where they are at present.
There is a raft of Government amendments in the group. Because of time, I will not go through them in detail. Suffice it to say that each and every one of them relates to an undertaking that I gave in Committee, or is a technical drafting amendment as a result of our repeated washing and brushing up of different parts of the Bill. Unless any hon. Member has problems about the amendments, I commend them generally; they all relate to the exhaustive discussions in Committee.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Erdington will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Tony Banks: New clause 18(1) says:
When allocating licences for the provision of national radio services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast".
That seems to be the equivalent of the tests to be applied by the ITC for television franchises. We want those tests extended to cover radio. If I remember correctly, we found the Government position in Committee inconsistent; whereas they were prepared to accept various quality threshold arguments and other regulations in respect of television franchises, they were not prepared with so much alacrity to see them extended into radio. I hope that we will insist on new clauses 18 and 20 as a way of getting a certain symmetry in the Government's attitude towards sound broadcasting and television broadcasting.
One reason why we want to insist on standards for commercial viability and competence is that there is much money to be made out of broadcasting. That is true in radio as it is in television. Perhaps it is not so spectacularly evident, but many businesses are moving into radio, and there is much movement in radio broadcasting.
Crown FM, an offshoot from the old LBC, now Canadian-owned, produces programmes largely on a talk-back basis. I understand that it is on the point of sacking 30 to 40 members of staff on the ground of lack of commercial viability, while at the same time, according to a newspaper report, it is about to employ Mr. Andrew Neil —he who had some knowledge of one of our parliamentary research assistants. I understand that he is to receive a salary of £160,000, while being allowed to maintain his editorial job in the Murdoch empire. I find that a strange way for a radio company to operate—to get rid of staff on the ground that it cannot afford to keep them and to take on one presenter on a moonlighting remuneration which is enough to make the eyes water even of some avaricious Conservative Members.
If we were to have new clause 18, I hope that it would provide a way to prevent that. When a franchise was being applied for, searching questions could be asked and assurances sought. If those assurances were subsequently reneged upon, something could be done to claim back the franchise.
On new clause 20, we noticed again and again in Committee that the one group of people to whose views no consideration was given was perhaps the most important group—viewers and listeners. There is no way of consulting them. Although hon. Members on all sides did their best to represent what they believed to be the interests of listeners and viewers, precious little in the Bill allows the various authorities and the responsible Government Department to consult the people who are, in the final analysis, the customers. We felt that that was a major omission from the Bill and on several occasions suggested machinery whereby the clients—the customers, listeners or viewers, however we describe them: the people who receive the final product—could be consulted. They remain outside the scope of the Bill and will have to suffer what is given to them.
The broadcasters had their fourpenny-worth and did very well by it. Hon. Members were able to put forward their views and the Minister made substantial amendments to the Bill which made it much better. The viewers and listeners were not consulted and the Minister was not prepared to include in the Bill any machinery to allow them to be consulted. New clause 20 at least allows——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Banks: That is why I support new clauses 18 and 20.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I shall be brief. The Opposition new clause is well intentioned and few of us would dissent from the defined objective outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who said that he wished to end the opaque method by which television licences have been distributed in the past. I think we all agree that that opaque method could do with some improvement.
The Opposition would be wise to accept the olive branch extended by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to concentrate on amendment No. 55 rather than on the new clauses, which are rather flawed because they consist largely of pious hopes and assertions rather than reality. In the margin of my notes I have written the word "How" beside some of the statements that I have heard. For example, it is said that the Commission must ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability. I have written the word "How" beside that because I am sure that the old IBA thought that it had done a good job at the last round of franchises by asking whether television licence applicants were commercially viable. One cannot always foresee the dramas that may emerge in television companies.

Mr. Corbett: I know that the hon. Gentleman's last remark was said with some feeling. Under the Government's proposals, the ITC will have to make a judgment about what we shall describe as the soundness of the money. The ITC will not be mesmerised by a pile of money but will want to know who stands behind it and how secure it is. There is not much of a gap between that and the commerical viability for which we argue.

Mr. Aitken: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My argument is that the Government's proposals are more on the ball than those of the Opposition. Their proposals are a rather complicated piece of machinery and remind me of the pop song that was around a few years ago. It was called "I've got a brand new combine harvester". The Opposition have designed this great new piece of machinery and in a wizard way it will solve all the problems. However, these problems cannot be solved other than by some of the past opaque methods which do not always work any more than the Commission's ideas will always work.
The two new clauses are too complicated. There is an exception with which I shall deal later.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that consultation is the key. The old IBA was not that bad at public consultation. The sight of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the Chamber reminds me of an extraordinary three-ring circus in which he and I took part. We were to be joint managing directors of a putative Yorkshire television company under the chairmanship of at that time the recently retired Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, now Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. That odd trio rocketed around the north Yorkshire countryside listening to a whole series of views about the inadequacies, on the whole, of the then Yorkshire Television and suggested ways in which its output might be improved by the challenging consortium. Those public consultation audiences did quite a good job, not just in suggesting ideas to the trio who were not at the end of the day called to the party to sing, but to Yorkshire Television itself.
The only wrong note that the Minister struck, in my view, was his suggestion that applicants should never be able to amend the terms of a prospectus as a result of public consultation. I hope that, when he redrafts amendment No. 55, he will give bidding consortia an opportunity to amend their proposals in the light of what has been said at public hearings. After all, we in the House of Commons frequently amend legislation in the light of views expressed both inside and outside the House; it seems very odd not to extend the same opportunity to television companies bidding for new licences. Most people are prepared to change their views as a result—at least partly—of listening to the views of others.
I feel that the new clause, in the form in which it has been proposed, is a little too cumbersome. Amendment No. 55 contains the kernel of the issue, and I hope that the Minister will at least allow bidding consortia to amend their proposals in the light of consultations when he produces the redrafted version that he has offered as an olive branch.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I did not intend to speak until the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) removed the last shred of my socialist credibility. I should like, however, to add to what he said, which was entirely correct: what we spearheaded was the employers' bid for the contract, which was an example of worker participation.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 are all about the value of consultation. The strength of the independent television companies lies in their regional roots: they have brought centres of television excellence to such places as Manchester and Leeds. They have built up teams of high-quality production staff to stimulate, excite and fertilise the regions—and the regions want a say in who provides their television services.
The consultation that we propose involves the important guarantee of feedback to which the companies must respond. The companies will be genuine representatives of the region: they will have regional capital, and regional staff with a commitment to regional programming. A surprising strength of feeling emerges from consultation, and when I participated in the process with the hon. Member for Thanet, South I found it most

stimulating. The system does not usually allow such insights into the views of a range of organised groups and individuals about regional needs.
Unless provision is made in the Bill, I see no way of giving the companies the feedback that will be necessary if the regions are to have a say in who provides the programmes. After all, the companies will be their companies; why should they not have their say? It is an important principle: listen to the people and trust their judgment.

Mr. Corbett: We had better finish while we are ahead. I am grateful to the Minister for his warm embrace of amendment No. 55, and to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for his sensible comments. He has given the Minister some good advice. I agree with his suggestion that the Minister should redraft the amend-ment to allow those who wish to respond to the comments arising from a bid to do so, and—if they see any need—to change the details. That is a helpful suggestion.
I assure the Minister that by public consultation we do not mean over some great area or a regional referendum. A number of individuals—viewers and listeners—and their organisations have not only legitimate interests in the matter but things to say which broadcasters should welcome. They will not agree with them 100 per cent.—nobody would expect that—but at the very least their views should be treated with respect.
It might be helpful if I say that I shall withdraw amendment No. 55 and express my gratitude to the Minister. We shall not press the other amendments.
I apologise for the drafting error in new clause 18. We meant to refer to the Radio Authority, not to the ITC, but that is what it says and that makes it faulty. I take responsibility for that and so we are left with new clause 20.
I do not want to flog new clause 20 because time is getting on. The Minister has accepted the spirit and purpose of amendment No. 55, but that relates to consultation on the basis of bids which will go through the system which the Government propose. What we are proposing is an entirely different system of awarding the new Channel 3 licences which, right from the start, gives viewers over a specified period the right to make comments and lays a duty upon the applicants to demonstrate that they have listened to and considered and, where they chose, responded to what has been said to them in those consultations.
That is a new way of doing it and I acknowledge some of the points, made again by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. In either the Government's way of doing this or in the way in which we propose in the new clause, there will be some areas of highly selective judgment. At the end of the day that must be so. There is no foolproof system.
Both sides of the House share an ambition that the process of the allocation of the new Channel 3 licences should be more open and should be seen to be more open. There is no argument about that. In a sense, inevitably we are arguing about the means to achieve that.
Having said that, to demonstrate our commitment co fulfilling the Government's ambition to placing the viewer and listener at the centre of broadcasting policy, we shall seek to press new clause 20.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 18.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20

AWARD OF CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

'( ) (1) When allocating licences for the provision of regional television services, the Commission shall ensure that licences are awarded only to companies that can demonstrate commercial viability, technical and professional competence and a commitment to diversity and quality in the range of programmes they intend to make or broadcast.

(2) Before awarding licences the Commission shall publish the names of all applicants who satisfy the conditions specified in (1) above, together with details of their applications and details of the arrangements for a specified period of public consultation which shall include the manner in which public comment is invited.

(3) The Commission shall provide all the applicants referred to in (2) above with a digest of the views submitted during the consultation period, and invite applicants to modify their applications where appropriate prior to a final decision on the awarding of licences.

(4) The primary consideration when awarding licences shall be the provision of a diverse range of quality programmes appropriate to the area to be served, and the extent to which the applicant has shown himself willing to respond to public comment on his original application.'.— [Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 262.

Division No. 195]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Fearn, Ronald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, A. J.
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


CTowther, Stan
Janner, Greville


Cryer, [...]ob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfedder, James


Darling, Alistair
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'hatv Hodge H'I)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron





Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Terry
Pike, Peter L.


Livingstone, Ken
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Primarolo, Dawn


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


McAllion, John
Richardson, Jo


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McWilliam, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mullin, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Nellist, Dave
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Martyn Jones.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cran, James


Benyon, W.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fookes, Dame Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Fry, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Gale, Roger






Gardiner, George
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Paice, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patnick, Irvine


Hayward, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Price, Sir David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Redwood, John


Holt, Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Irving, Sir Charles
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knowles, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stevens, Lewis


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thome, Neil


Madel, David
Thurnham, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David





Trippier, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Ray


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Bill (T'slde North)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Tony Durant and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 21

APPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES FOR LOCAL DELIVERY SERVICES

.—(1) Where the Commission propose to grant a licence to provide a local delivery service, they shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, a notice—

(a) stating that they propose to grant such a licence;
(b) specifying the area or locality in the United Kingdom for which the service is to be provided;
(c) inviting applications for the licence; and
(d) stating the fee payable on any application made in pursuance of the notice.

(2) Any application made in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1) must be in writing and accompanied by—

(a) the fee specified in the notice under paragraph (d) of that subsection;
(b) where appropriate, the applicant's proposals for providing a service that would—

(i) cater for the tastes and interests of persons living in the area or locality for which it would be provided or for any particular tastes and interests of such persons, and
(ii) broaden the range or programmes available to persons living in that area or locality;

(c) a technical plan relating to the service which the applicant proposes to provide and indicating—

(i) the parts of the area specified under subsection (I)(b)(i) which would be covered by that service,
(ii) the timetable in accordance with which that coverage would be achieved,
(iii) the technical means by which it would be achieved, and
(iv) the extent (if any) to which he proposes that the provision of the service should be undertaken by some other person in accordance with section 67(5); and
(c) such information as the Commission may reasonably require as to the applicant's present financial position and his projected financial position during the period for which the licence would be in force.

(3) At any time after receiving such an application and before determining it the Commission may require the applicant to furnish additional information under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d)'.—[Sir P. Blaker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Peter Blaker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 217, in page 52, line 13, leave out clause 68.
No. 218, in clause 68, page 52, line 32, at the beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.
No. 219, page 52, line 36, at end insert—
'(2A) The Commission shall specify a nil percentage under subsection (1)(d)(iii) in relation to any accounting period for which the qualifying revenue of the applicant would be insufficient to provide a return on the initial capital costs incurred by him in providing the service.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), the Commission shall draw up, and from time to time review, a statement setting out the principles to be followed in ascertaining in relation to any person providing a local delivery service—

(a) the initial capital costs incurred by him in providing the service, and
(b) the depreciation, payments in respect of interest and other matters to be taken into account in respect of any accounting period of his in determining whether a return on those costs has been received by him in relation to that accounting period.'.

No. 356, in page 52, line 44, after `service', insert
'and the provision proposed by the applicant for the reception and immediate transmission of the programmes included in the television broadcasting service provided by the BBC (and Channel 4 and S4C) for reception in that area'.
No. 220, in clause 69, page 54, line 2, leave out 'in accordance with section 68'.
No. 221, in page 54, line 3, leave out from 'licence' to 'unless' in line 4.
No. 357, in page 54, line 10, after 'and', insert—
`(d) that any telecommunications system proposed provides for the delivery of BBC–1 and 2 (and Channel 4 or S4C) services (as appropriate)'.
No. 222, in page 54, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18.
No. 80, in page 54, line 31, leave out clause 70.
No. 224, in page 56, line 10, leave out clause 71.
No. 358, in clause 75, page 59, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) A local delivery licence shall include a condition requiring the licence holder to provide services on BBC-1 and BBC-2 (and Channel 4 or S4C, as appropriate).'.
No. 359, in page 59, line 26, after 'subsection (3)', insert `or subsection (4)'.
No. 216, in schedule 10, page 177, line 46, at end insert—
`(4) Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of Part II of this Schedule, where any licence continues in force by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), it shall be treated for the purposes of section 72 as if it were a licence under Part II of this Act to provide a local delivery service for the area in which the prescribed diffusion service has been provided, and that section shall apply in relation to such a licence as if—

(a) for subsection (1) there were substituted—

"(1) When a licence continued in force by virtue of paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 10 to this Act expires, its holder may apply for the grant of a local delivery licence under this section for a period of 15 years beginning with the date of the grant of that licence.";

(b) for any reference to the renewal of a local delivery licence or to an application for such a renewal there were respectively substituted a reference to the grant of such a licence or an application for such a grant;
(c) for the reference in subsection (2) to the date on which the local delivery licence would otherwise cease to be in force there were substituted a reference to the date on which the licence in question would otherwise cease to be in force;
(d) in subsection (4), after the word "grant" there were inserted the words "(other than under this section)";
(e) in subsection (5), paragraph (b) were omitted;
(f) in subsection (6)(b) the words from "specify" to "the" in line 2 were omitted; and
(g) in subsection (7), after the word "granting" there were inserted the words "(other than under this section)".


(5) Section 75(3) and (4) shall not apply in relation to a local delivery licence granted by virtue of sub-paragraph 4, but otherwise Part II of this Act applies to a local delivery licence so granted as it applies to any other such licence granted under that Part.'.

Sir Peter Blaker: The new clause and the amendments are about cable television, which was little discussed in Committee. I have to declare an interest in the subject as chairman of a company which has six cable franchises but does not aspire to obtaining any more. I wish to refer to three topics which are the subject of different amendments in the group.
New clause 21 is about the franchising proposals. After the Bill comes into force, those who seek to obtain franchises, which until the end of this year will be called cable franchises, will follow a system similar to that provided for Channel 3—they will have to make competitive bids and be prepared to pay a percentage of qualifying revenue. The franchise holders will be called local delivery operators and will have a choice of technologies other than cable. That is in contrast to the existing cable operators, who are obliged to use cable and to cover their entire franchised area.
That new system will be in contrast to the present arrangements which are based on a judgment by the Cable Television Authority of the merits of different applicants with the background of section 7 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 which sets out various criteria which the cable authority is to apply.
Is the new proposed method of obtaining franchises worthwhile, because by the end of this year most of the urban parts of the United Kingdom will already have been franchised? Only 13 areas with more than 20,000 homes will not have been franchised. That is a very small number compared with the 14·5 million homes that will have been franchised. That 14·5 million represents about 80 per cent. of homes in urban areas in the United Kingdom. By the end of this year 136 franchises will have been awarded.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the cable authority, which has worked at a speed at which nobody could have anticipated. It franchised 50 new areas last year and will franchise nearly that number this year, although in practice it will be able to use only part of the year. The chairman, Mr. Richard Burton, and his team and the director-general, Mr. Jon Davey, and his officials have done an admirable job.
Will there be sufficient applicants for the areas that will still be available? I am not sure that with the new system, which involves payments for obtaining franchises, a sufficient number of people will come forward.
The message that is being conveyed to the cable industry by the new provisions involving several kinds of payment has not been entirely well received. There is a feeling in parts of the cable industry that they may suggest that the Government's attitude towards the industry is becoming less enthusiastic. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to give the industry some reassurance, and if he is able to meet me on amendment No. 216 that will give a positive message to the industry.
10.30 pm
The new clause assimilates the franchising process for local delivery operators to the system for local radio operators. Both will be operating locally, which is the whole concept of the cable industry. It is reasonable that


the franchising system of the two should be put on a par. The alternative would have been to have tabled a new clause or amendment that would have assimilated the method of franchising after the Bill comes into force to the existing system—that is, simply to continue the existing arrangements of the Cable Television Authority. I was advised that that would have been extremely difficult to draw up, so I have adopted the alternative method of assimilating it to the system for local radio, which has given rise to this debate.
There would be no serious disadvantage to revenue if one or other of the proposals were accepted, given the trifling number of areas still to be franchised, and it would be possible to retain for the purposes of the renewal process a system involving payment of the cash bid and payment of a proportion of revenue, so there would not be a significant revenue loss.
Amendment No. 219 relates to the requirement for the local delivery operator to pay a proportion of revenue. The Bill already says that the ITC may set that proportion of revenue at zero for a local delivery operator. The industry would like to see a provision on the lines of amendment No. 219, which says that the ITC would be obliged to set the proportion at zero until a company had reached the point where it was making a profit. It seems bizarre to the industry that there should be a requirement to pay a proportion of revenue when, at present, no company in the cable industry is even making a profit, so large are the expenses of constructing the cable system.
Amendment No. 216 is the most important of the three amendments. The renewal system for the local delivery operator in the Bill will mean that at the end of 15 years the incumbent operator will be able to make a direct arrangement with the ITC for renewal—for a further 10 years under the Bill or for a further 15 years as proposed in Government amendment No. 179, which we shall discuss later. The local delivery operator will be able to make a direct arrangement with the ITC for renewal if he is prepared to pay the sum that the ITC regards as appropriate for that purpose and provided, of course, that the local delivery operator has conducted himself correctly and has observed the conditions of his licence.
The provision in the Bill for renewing the franchise held by a cable operator is less favourable because the cable operator will not have the option of making a direct arrangement with the ITC. He will be obliged to go out to competitive tender, involving a competitive bid, and also to pay a percentage of revenue. The existing cable operators are worried because such requirements are unpredictable and hazardous for them. Even if they have been excellent operators and conducted themselves impeccably for the 15 years of their franchise—even if they have kept to every clause in their licence and observed it scrupulously—they will still be at risk of being outbid by a newcomer who may plan to install the microwave system or lease another telecommunications system from some other operator. They will then not be able to renew.
The House may feel that that is too bad for the incumbent operator who loses out. But the problem is that the cost of installing a cable system is so enormous that the normal projections of existing cable operators show that, if everything goes well, at the end of 15 years—the licence period that most of them will have—they will only just be repaying their debts. They do not expect to be in profit after operating expenses, depreciation and interest payments until at least year seven—again, if everything

goes well. The amounts involved are colossal. At a rough estimate, it costs £300 million to lay cable past 1 million homes. A little calculation will show us that the sum that the cable industry is expecting to invest over the next 10 years exceeds £4,000 million. Most of that money will come—if it comes—from the United States, Canada or France because the British investor has not yet caught on to the possibilities of the cable industry.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House whether those estimates are based on conventional cabling or on using the new wireless cabling on a microwave system, which is much cheaper?

Sir Peter Blaker: No. My figures are based on the use of cable—whether fibre optic or coaxial—which in general has to be laid underground.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Interactive.

Sir Peter Blaker: As my hon. Friend points out, such cabling has the enormous advantage that not only can it provide one-way entertainment, whether on national, international or community channels—and community channels are important; it also has interactive capabilities and can therefore provide alarm systems of all kinds, home shopping and banking facilities, press-button voting, video, jukebox systems and a whole range of other interactive services, as well as better and cheaper telephone services. A microwave system could not do most of those things.
The enormous burden of cost that the cable industry has to bear—the huge sums that it has to lay out before it gets a return—and the fact that it does not expect even to pay off its debts for 15 years at best make the proposal so important.
What we need in Britain is the maximum speed of investment by the cable companies and maximum confidence on the part of the cable companies. The industry has been dismayed by the apparent discrimination against it as compared with the licensed delivery operators in the provisions of the Bill dealing with the system of renewal. In my view, we need a system that will provide greater assurance—although there cannot be any promises—to the cable operator that, if he observes the conditions of his licence, performs satisfactorily and is prepared to pay the appropriate sum, he will be able to renew and thus make a profit which he certainly will not have made before year 15.
I have had a great deal of correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and with Ministers in general. I have taken representatives of the cable industry to see him, accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). We have had co-operation from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and we have had close consultation with members of the industry. We took 10 representatives of the industry— representing about £2,000 million of investment—to see my hon. and learned Friend recently. We appreciate the time that he gave us when he had many other preoccupations with prisons, quite apart from his cable responsibilities.
We suggested that the solution to the problem is to align the two systems of renewal with one another to provide the same system of renewal for the cable operator


at the end of 15 years, as is available to the local delivery operator. There would be no loss to the Treasury by that adjustment because the amount to be paid would be assessed by the ITC as being the amount that would be paid as a result of a contested bid, and there would be no loss of principle.
There are other points that I could make in support of the proposition, but I shall not make them because I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be able to give me an encouraging response. The industry is not asking for any privileges. It is proposing a fair and common-sense solution. The industry holds out the possibility of great benefit for this country by way of infrastructure, technology and inward investment. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be able to give me an encouraging response.

Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir. P. Blaker) for the way in which he has spoken. As he said towards the end of his speech, there has been intense discussion about the impact of the Bill on cable interests. I am aware, as are my colleagues, that this is an important time for the development of cable in this country, which took off— perhaps that is the wrong metaphor—or failed to dive underground quite as quickly as some had hoped in the early 1980s, in the immediate aftermath of the Green Paper and the Bill, but which has now shown a considerable figure not least because of the very substantial sums that are in the process of being invested from North America. Of course we welcome that investment. I am desperately anxious that we should not do anything to put that investment in jeopardy.
My right hon. Friend has been stalwartly supported by a group of our hon. Friends in his representations. I am glad to see many of them in their places tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) was on the Committee and raised these points regularly. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have spoken to me privately and in more formal meetings of the importance of our reconsidering some aspects of the Bill so that we do not, by a side wind, blow away some of the investment that is ready, at long last, to carry the cable revolution forward.
Many of the amendments deal with the granting of local delivery licences. For a variety of reasons that I shall not rehearse given the hour, I am not persuaded that what we propose is deficient, although, obviously, my right hon. Friend may wish to continue to press his points, and there are further stages of the Bill to go through. However, he pointed out, and it is undoubtedly the case, that particular attention has been paid by industry in its representations to the renewal of cable licences. Particular concern was expressed about the impact of the arrangements that we propose for a competitive tender framework on investment in the industry.
My right hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he regarded that as the most important point that he was making tonight. I am glad that he said that because as a result of the points that he and his colleagues made, in particular at the meeting at the Department—at which representatives of most of the leading cable companies came, under his leadership, to discuss these matters and at which I was able, perhaps for the first time, to focus

exclusively on these points and to give them the most intense personal consideration—I am happy to tell him that I can accept in principle his amendment No. 216.
Having had the opportunity of consulting colleagues, we can agree that provided a cable operator who retains his existing status performs satisfactorily, he should be able to renew his licence under the clause 72 procedure, rather than under the arrangements that were originally proposed in the Bill. I shall explain why we have arrived at that conclusion.
10.45 pm
First, it would be unfortunate if the provisions of the Bill, albeit unintentionally, deterred the major investment that is now coming forward in the cable industry. I am persuaded by my right hon. Friend's arguments that investor confidence would be dented if the Bill were not amended as he proposes. Secondly, given the huge investment required to construct a cable system and the long payback period, it seems right that operators should enjoy a reasonable certainty of tenure, provided that they perform adequately. That is the key point that registered firmly with me during the long but eminently worthwhile meeting.
My right hon. Friend's amendment No. 216—I mean no criticism by this—is not drafted as parliamentary counsel would wish. If he will agree to withdraw it, I undertake to bring forward a professionally drafted amendment that will have the effect of accepting the thrust of his amendment in all material particulars.

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) spoke fairly of the difficulties being faced by the cable industry. He will concede that what he is asking for, and appears to have got, are to some extent concessions for the industry. That being so, we are entitled to ask, as consumers or hon. Members, what is the quid pro quo. What are we getting for that?
Although, as he said, most of the country has been franchised, not much else has happened. The extent of cabling in this country is very limited indeed, and nobody can contradict that. After my election, being aware that my city had been franchised, I began making inquiries to discover where the cable television was. Eventually I found out who had the franchise and had a long meeting with those concerned. They spent much time telling me why Edinburgh had not been cabled and was not likely to be cabled for some time, or at least not to any extent.
I appreciate the difficulty in digging up the streets of a city and laying cables. Cabling the country has much to commend it, provided that it is not just providing the capability of carrying a narrow range of services. It was interesting to note a reply given by the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South to an intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) about the type of cable. He talked about the infrastructure that could be provided for the nation in telecommunications and so on.
That is useful, and any city that had that capability would be at an advantage compared with other cities. But unfortunately that has not happened. If the Government are now telling the franchise-holder, "Provided you have done nothing wrong, you can get the franchise without having to go out to competitive tender," I am entitled to ask, "What has happened in the last 10 years while you


have had the franchise? Where is the cable? Who has the service? Only a few high rise flats have the ducting to carry it, or are others to benefit from it?"

Mr. Mellor: A dose of scepticism does no one any harm —but, with great respect, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that clearly the only people who would qualify for renewal on the terms that I have stated would be those who had fulfilled their obligation and had cabled in accordance with their franchise. Anyone who had failed to cable would not be entitled to such a renewal. That is a fair point.

Mr. Darling: It all depends on the extent of the cabling and the exact terms of the franchise. Without seeing the terms, it is difficult to comment on them. I think that I am entitled to be sceptical, as I suspect that many people are, about how much cabling will take place, especially with the coming of satellite television. Other options are now open to people that might be seen as more attractive. I do not know whether such options would be more attractive. I hope that I am proved wrong. I believe that cabling has a great deal to commend it. All that I am saying is that I am entitled to be sceptical because a great deal has not happened up and down the country, with a few exceptions.
Even though the country has been "franchised", as the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South put it, few people can watch cable television. If the Government intend to offer this concession and this carrot they should also provide a stick to ensure that the companies get a move on and do not simply sit on a franchise and hope that conditions will improve somewhat to make things more attractive to them.
Some aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause 21 are attractive. I am attracted to the requirement that the operator cater for the tastes and interests of people living in the area. It would be necessary to show how the proposed service would add to the services already provided. That is a wholly welcome step that has been absent from other aspects of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should also seek other concessions for new entrants, such as not having to pay the deposit or other payments in respect of the franchise unless there is a clear commitment over a given period to put something under the ground to ensure that services are delivered.
To that end, the Opposition have tabled one amendment and a consequential amendment which would require the cable to carry existing television services. We tabled that amendment simply to ensure that cable was not capable of carrying only a narrow range of services, rather than a wide range. We must consider more than the narrow interest of commercial companies—without criticising such companies. There is a wider interest, both of the country strategically and of individual towns, cities or localities, in ensuring that they have a cable system that can be developed and used, not something of marginal interest to the population as a whole.
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment. He has cause to be well pleased with his work. He has at least gained something from it. I am worried that we should be invited to approve the amendment without having anything to show for it. I should hate to think that the next time that we come to discuss cable television, whether in a future Broadcasting Bill or some other vehicle, we find that things have not moved on. I understand the industry's problems. Perhaps

the Government should have done something earlier to ensure that help was given. Leaving it to the industry does not seem to have done much good. An opportunity seems to have been passed by. I remain deeply sceptical, despite what the Minister said, that the concession made tonight will greatly improve the position.

Mr. Rowlands: I wish briefly to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) from the Front Bench. No one wants to interfere with the genuine cosy concession that has been made perfectly properly between the Minister and the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). However, broader issues are raised not only by new clause 21 but by our amendment, including the dose of scepticism to which the Minister referred during the speech of my hon. Friend.
The quality of Committee stages is that sometimes one is educated by them. I had not given much thought to cable television until I listened to the arguments on cabie in Committee. The first thing that came clearly to one's mind was that the British investment community has been a hopeless failure in cable television. It has required a combination of the United States and Canadian investment cavalry to come over the hillside and invest in British cabling. It has not been a British effort in any shape or form.
The second factor that has struck me more and more is the point made with great force by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central that in geographic terms —I make no apology for referring to the Principality—we are entitled to be sceptical about the extent and scope of the choice that is to be offered as a result of cabling. The answer to many of the problems in the communities that I represent, and many other Welsh communities, may be cabling, but there is no hope of or opportunity for investors coming in to do what needs to be done, to create the choice and opportunities in broadcasting that the Minister claims the Bill is all about. I ask the Minister again whether the nature, structure and character of the operations that we are setting up will achieve the result that we all want—maximum choice, diversity of programmes and, primarily, cabling.
There is much confusion at present about what exactly the law is on the matter. In my own valley community there is a major fibre optic line up through the valley as a result of British Telecom's investment. As I understand it, British Telecom cannot diversify that fibre optic line into other services. Equally, it has no interest in promoting anybody else's line, because the other investors would be interested only in competing with British Telecom's services and telephones.
We should all ask how valley communities such as mine, with 20,000 plus households—which could enjoy the benefits of cabling and, by a co-operative rather than competitive effort, maximise the investment available—can achieve the results we all want: opportunity, choice and diversity. In that respect, I support amendment No. 358, which proposes that any cabling should carry the main stream channels, including S4C. I cannot believe that in a multi-channel system anybody in his right mind would not want to carry S4C or any other existing operating channel.
My worry over this matter is like my concern over Channel 5, that the communities that I represent will miss out on the other alternative and opportunity to provide a


multi-choice broadcasting system. I have broader concerns than those in the perfectly proper cosy debate between the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the Minister on new clause 21. We have a right to say that investors have failed to develop cable television. That can be compared to the German experience, where the German post office, through the state, built a nationwide multi-cable system to almost every community. The German equivalents of the sort of communities that I represent are being cabled by a state post office system, in a much-prized and much-vaunted capitalist society.
I believe that we shall get it wrong and fall between two stools. The private investor will not do it and, under this Government, the state is not willing to give the matter any push or assistance. There is a strong case for challenging the fundamental principles and the basis on which cabling and its future is presently organised.

Sir Peter Blaker: I notice that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is, in effect, saying that the state should take the risk. That is not a proposition that will attract many of my hon. Friends because this is a risky business. That was the point that had been missed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He complained that very little was happening in the cable industry. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, the progress of the cable industry has been slower than was expected in 1983 and 1984, when it was launched in its broader band form. One reason why it has moved slowly is lack of programmes. That is being remedied by Sky and by BSB, which has only just come on stream with five extra channels. That will be very helpful.
Another reason was the lack of know-how about how to run a cable system effectively. Several enterprises made the mistake of not calling in advice and skills from north America. That is being remedied. It is worth pointing out that the percentage of homes signed up by the British cable industry is as satisfactory as was the position in north America generally at a comparable time in the development of its systems, which are now doing very well.
The main reason why there are not many cable companies yet in operation is simply the time scale. The north American interest has developed only since the middle of 1988. Those who understand the cable system will know that from the time the idea of advertising an area is mooted publicly by the cable authority until the time the successful applicant for the franchise is able to start laying a cable is well over a year, if not about 18 months. So there has not been time for the great mass of cable companies which have been franchised since the middle of 1988 to achieve much. One hopes that with extra competence and experience that will change quite rapidly.

11 pm

Mr. Darling: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us when the expansion of the cable industry will take place. I accept that there is a risk, although there does not seem to be much risk in getting a franchise and not doing anything with it for six or seven years. He said that it takes

about 18 months for things to start happening. He has told us something that I for one knew: that the Americans took an interest in the middle of 1988. On any view there should be some activity now. Some of us have yet to see it.

Sir Peter Blaker: There is activity. I do not know how closely the hon. Gentleman has followed the industry. I am beginning to suspect that he does not know much about it; no doubt that is an unworthy suspicion, but from what he is saying, it is bound to arise.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 10 franchises are constructing and that seven have begun operation in the last year?

Sir Peter Blaker: That is certainly true; indeed, my information is that the figures are higher.
I find it strange that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney appeared to object to the fact that investment is coming from overseas. I do not know whether he has a Japanese motor manufacturing plant in his constituency. There are some in Wales. I have not heard many objections from those who are situated close to such plants.

Mr. Rowlands: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I did not denigrate overseas investment. I thought it a sad and salutary comment upon British short-termism that City investors do not support the cable industry. Perhaps the climate of investment, including interest rates, does not allow City investors to think two or three years ahead. Curiously, overseas investors take a long-term view. What case is the right hon. Gentleman making?

Sir Peter Blaker: If that is what the hon. Gentleman believes, I go a long way with him. I think the City of London is making an enormous mistake. It should regard investment in the cable industry in the same way as British investors regarded the construction of railways 150 years ago or the electricity industry around the turn of the century. We are talking about a long-term investment of a utility nature. The City of London has not yet caught on to that proposition. I think it will regret that in due course.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked what the stick would be. The ITC will have power to withdraw a franchise if the franchise does not perform satisfactorily. The Cable Television Authority threatened a number of companies, which had not started to build after a certain delay, with the withdrawal of their licences. Their licences were not withdrawn because in each case an investor came in at the last minute to start construction. So there is power to withdraw the licence from a non-performer.
The biggest stick of all is risk. This a risky business and a great deal of money may be lost if the industry does not succeed. I am not suggesting that anybody should be able to get a franchise without a competitive tender system. I am simply suggesting that the arrangements for renewing a cable operator's franchise should be the same as those for a licensed delivery operator. That seems eminently fair.
In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at my other two points.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

BROADCASTING TRAINING FUND (No. 2)

`( 1) The Commission shall establish a fund to be known as the Broadcasting Training Fund.

(2) The fund shall be under the management of a committee appointed by the Commission for the purposes of this section and shall be applied by the Committee in the making of grants to finance the training of persons engaged in the preparation or making of television programmes and for connected purposes.

(3) When making any grant out of the fund pursuant to subsection (3) the Committee may impose such conditions as they think fit.

(4) The persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine, but the Commission shall, when making any such appointments, ensure that a majority of the members are persons with a knowledge of training in broadcasting including representatives of the broadcasting unions.

(5) The terms of the appointment of the members of the Committee shall be such as the Commission may determine; and in the case of any members of the Committee who are neither members or employees of the Commission, the Commission may:

(a) pay to them such remuneration and allowances, and
(b) pay or make provision for paying to or in respect of them such sums by way of allowances, pensions or gratuities, as the Commission may determine.

(6) Any expenses incurred by the Commission either under subsection (6) or for salaries of Commission employees whose services have been furnished to the Committee, shall be defrayed out of the fund.

(7) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year, the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings for that year and transmit it to the Commisssion.

(8) In this section "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission and "qualifying programmes" means programmes of such description as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purpose.'.—[Mr. Darling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 244 to 248.
Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
(cc) that the applicant can demonstrate a proper commitment to the training and retraining of persons employed in the preparation or making of programmes.'.
Government amendments Nos. 432 and 436.

Mr. Darling: The purpose of the new clause is to establish a training fund, the functions of which are set out in the new clause. In essence, it is to advance the training of people engaged in the making of television programmes. In the Committee debate on these matters there was widespread acceptance of the fact that, unless there was training and a renewal of talent within the industry, the industry would die.
It has been said many times that the great strength of the British film and television industry is the training of actors and technical people. That training has brought it to the respected position that it enjoys today. We are anxious to establish a broadcasting training fund to ensure that

such high-quality training continues. I do not think that the point requires to be laboured because it was canvassed at great length in Committee. Suffice it to say that the establishment of a training fund would greatly assist, especially as there is a risk under the new regime that some companies will be tempted to cut corners, one of which may be training. That is because training is expensive, much time and effort is invested in it and it takes some time for the end product to emerge.
The Government amendments that we are considering with the new clause recognise the importance of training. Those amendments are welcome. There will now be a requirement, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, that applicants will have to demonstrate a proper commitment to training and retraining. I trust that when drawing up the licence requirements, the ITC will give prominence to this proposal. Our amendment No. 59 proposes, perhaps more specifically, what is intended in Government amendment No. 244. That Government amendment contains a rather odd provision that does not sit easily with the matter of training. However, it is welcome even though it does not go as far as I would like. The provision invites the applicant to say to what extent he proposes to situate any office, studio or staff within the area for which the proposed service is to be provided.
There was much debate in Committee about an applicant's commitment to the region that he or she proposed to serve. It seems to us that there must be such a commitment if regional television is to mean anything. We were anxious about what might happen if someone based in London or perhaps abroad were simply to put a brass plate on a door in a region and claim to he of that region. If regional television is to thrive and if there is to be a proper commitment not just to training but to the production of programmes that do not necessarily reflect the region but are clearly made outside the main centres of film making and broadcasting, it is necessary for the franchise holder to be firmly rooted in the region that he proposes to serve. We were all concerned about the dominance of London in the context of film making and broadcasting.
I know that some regions have a greater identity than others and the nations of Wales and Scotland have clear and self-evident identities. One can imagine the anger that would be aroused if, for example, the Scottish television service was wholly owned, operated and controlled not just from another part of the United Kingdom but from abroad. The same feeling exists in the north-west of England. Even in East Anglia, which is not that far from London, there is a strong regional identity. People want to be assured that the programmes produced will use local talent. The programmes do not have to be about the area but must give strong emphasis to the area that the applicant seeks to serve. I am not saying that it is necessary to have been born and brought up in an area, and to have lived nowhere else, to achieve that; it is, however, necessary to have some knowledge of the area, and some affinity with it. We explored the issue in a number of debates in Committee, but to little effect.
Nevertheless, the Government seem to have recognised the strength of our argument—to a limited extent—and the ITC is, at least, entitled to know applicants' proposals. I hope that it will take into account the strong feeling that the regions deserve a finn commitment. Staff should be


encouraged to live and work in the regions concerned, for instance. After all, the Bill is about regional broadcasting services combining to provide another national network.
I warmly welcome the Government's proposals, and also their additional provisions for training.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling): I took the suggestions made in Committee very seriously, as I hope that amendment No. 244 shows. Applicants for Channel 3 licences will be required to set out their proposals for training or retraining programme production staff, and to demonstrate the extent to which offices, studios and staff will be located in the area that the service will cover. I think that that deals adequately with the issues of training and regional identity. The provision will also help the ITC to determine whether applicants have crossed the quality threshold: for example, an applicant claiming to set up a regional programme production centre would clearly lose credibility if he had no arrangements for training or retraining, and only a hazy idea of where his centre would be based.
The training requirement covers not only the specific training initiatives that applicants intend for their own staff, but the policy that they adopt in Commissioning programmes from other production centres, or from independent producers. The ITC will, of course, be able to use the information that they receive to assist them in determining whether an applicant can produce the programmes that are necessary to cross the quality threshold. I hope that that will achieve the necessary balance between a lighter-touch regulatory system and the clear indication to broadcasters that they will need trained staff if they are to produce the programmes that are required of them.
I am not persuaded of the need for a broadcasting training fund—financed, presumably, by some kind of levy on ITC licensees. I believe that the programme-making companies must take the lead on training. If they need an industry-wide training body, there is nothing to prevent them from setting one up, but I would need a good deal of persuading before I would agree to impose such a structure on them. I do not think that training will suffer; if the companies are required to state their training arrangements categorically, their appreciation of the significance of training will, I think, be sharpened. The fact that my proposal is not coupled with a fund for the purpose will not, I trust, lead anyone to believe that the Government have denied companies the means to achieve the highly desirable end of a well-trained work force, which has already benefited British broadcasting.
I hope that the House will see amendment No. 244 as a considerable step forward, and that the Opposition will not think it necessary to press the new clause.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister has come some way —courtesy of the Committee, in the sense that that is an educational process bringing the Minister towards the Opposition's point of view which, on most matters, has been correct—but he has not come far enough.
Amendment No. 244 is welcome, because it places an obligation on the regional ITV or Channel 3 companies to make a specific commitment to training. For too long, the

regional ITV companies have been parasitic for training on the BBC. The industry has come to depend heavily on the BBC which has devoted considerable, well-organised efforts to training. The problem is that just to impose that requirement on ITV, which has muddled rather than organised its way through training, is not enough.
First, we now have a number of newcomers, the independents in particular, who are not in a position to provide training on their own because they do not have the size of one of the ITV or Channel 3 companies or the financial means to do so. As I understand it, the independent producers support a provision for industrywide training as outlined in the new clause, but they do not have the resources to do it themselves. The other newcomers, the satellite companies, which will eventually be on the same scale, should also be required to participate in a training effort which needs to be organised industrywide.
Secondly, because of the tight financial constraints that the Government are imposing on the BBC—the process of slow strangulation by an RPI-geared licence fee—the BBC will be making less of a contribution to training on which the rest of the industry has depended.
This is the time to make a provision for an industrywide training council to be financed by levy and joint, industrywide training schemes to be developed with the companies. The industry is developing rapidly. When I go back to a television studio after a mere decade away, I do not understand what is going on. We need continuous training and retraining and upgrading of skills for the industry to keep up. We are talking about a highly competitive area, and unless we maintain our skills, Britain will be left badly behind. The only way to do that is to have an industrywide council such as we have specified.
Training is a crucial area for which the market, on which the Government rely so much, does not provide. We have seen that in industry outside television. The market provides for quick speculative efforts for the get-rich-quick mentality, not for the long-term laying down of skills and training. This is the moment to provide for that by establishing such a council. The Minister's words are welcome, but they are not enough. We need a positive commitment to a training council.

Mr. John Greenway: I shall not detain the House, but I want to place on record my appreciation that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has brought forward the amendment, particularly the second part of it which refers to "offices, studios or staff" which a would-be licensee proposes to establish within the region to which the licence is to be granted. My hon. and learned Friend will recall that he kindly accepted a similar amendment, incorporated in the Bill, which in the allocation process will require the ITC to ask would-be licensees what facilities they propose to establish in the region for their licence.
It is important that, as we are still looking at a regional structure for ITV—its great strength—there should, in appropriate cases, be a proper opportunity for those facilities to be maintained. There will be regions where that is more important. I wanted to make the point that the amendment is very important, and that I greatly welcome the point that my hon. and learned Friend made.

Mr. Tony Banks: I can see the attraction of amendment No. 244, but I prefer new clause 25. My reservations in


respect of amendment No. 244 relate to what will happen if the holder of a new franchise does not subsequently honour training undertakings made in the original round of applications. I suspect that that will constitute one of those minor omissions that will not result in a major penalty.
When it comes to local government, the Government say that it is right that everyone should contribute. One could almost understand that if contributions were based on some equity, but they are not in the case of the poll tax. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) need not worry —I do not intend to draw the House into a debate on the subject of the poll tax. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the argument used by the Government in respect of one issue is not applied in another.
We have seen with the abolition of training boards that an employer who chooses not to train but to poach instead lives off the backs of enlightened and progressive employers who are prepared to invest in training. The employer who does not do that can afford to up the wages he pays, because he has made savings elsewhere, and take trained staff away from other companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned that the BBC has provided the greatest poaching ground for skilled and trained staff among ITV companies, and among many others in the broadcasting industry in this country and abroad. He referred also to satellite television companies.
The impression that I gain on my rare visits to Sky Television—about which my hon. Friend knows a great deal more than I do—is that it has a high percentage of Antipodeans on its staff, and that Sky has brought a large number of Australians and New Zealanders into this country. It could be that Sky Television is not prepared to train staff, and instead chooses to attract them from elsewhere. It could also be that Britain is running out of skilled broadcasters and technicians. There are certainly a large number of skill bottlenecks throughout British manufacturing industry, and another could exist in broadcasting.
The Minister's assurances and the provisions of amendment No. 244 do not go far enough. It is a matter of trying to maintain standards, and of trying to ensure that the burden of training is shared equitably across the whole industry. It is not right that certain companies should be able to live off the backs of those that provide training. A training fund would benefit the whole industry and guarantee that everyone made some contribution to that aspect—which I thought would be very much in line with current Government thinking.

Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister clarify Government amendment No. 244? It does not make clear whether the applicant's proposals for training or retraining should cover solely the applicant's operations or also those of the independents that it intends to use.
The Bill makes provision for the use of independent production companies, and I suppose that the applicant would refer to making use of their output. The amendment does not make it clear that an independent company would have to provide training.

Mr. Mellor: I had to think about that issue carefully. It is difficult to place a formal requirement on the independents within the mechanisms provided because

there is no direct relationship between them and the ITC. That is why the Bill does not purport to do that, although I am glad to say that during the consultations with the Independent Producers Association and others, they showed willingness to recognise that they had a role in training, and I hope that that will be followed up. But the ITC would have no direct relationship with them of the kind that would allow me to do for them what amendment 244 does for the franchise holders, who will have a direct relationship with the ITC and will have committed themselves to obligations which can be enforced. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Cryer: That is helpful because it clarifies the position, and it is as I thought. The amendment reflects discussions which took place in Committee, but I and my hon. Fiends do not think that it goes far enough. What the Minister has just said justifies that criticism because, while it is agreeable to have an understanding—and I am sure that the Minister is well-intentioned—the difficulty is that we have to legislate for people who are not well-intentioned and who give assurances to the Minister when he seeks them but in subsequent years allow them to slide away and ignore them.
That is why I thought that this would have been a helpful clause for the Minister to incorporate in the Bill, for two reasons. First, the independents will be involved and, as the Minister rightly says, the ITC will have no direct relationship with them and cannot provide any guarantee of training. Secondly, the industry uses freelances a great deal, and if there is no solid core of training more freelances will be used. More and more freelances tend to be used when companies cut costs in the sort of competitive situation envisaged in the Bill and the source of trained and expert technicians who are so valuable to the industry will then dry up. That is of great concern.
I recall that when the National Film School was established at Beaconsfield the ITV companies ignored it for years, although it provided film and video training in the hope that ITV companies would use the facilities. They did, but it took a long time.
In the circumstances I previously described, where ITV companies are undoubtedly building up funds, perhaps training will take a back seat in the company's order of priorities.
A levy helps small companies. Good firms in all industries complain bitterly when they provide decent training facilities and a recently-established company without adequate training facilities, or the get-rich-quick cowboys, who do not want to establish facilities, poach employees from the good companies and act like parasites. New clause 25 would obviate that by ensuring that every company made a contribution according to turnover, which would ensure a supply of good quality technicians. That is important.
The Minister has made one tepid step in the right direction, but it will be unsatisfactory, and it will mean that over a period of years the number of skilled technicians in the industry will diminish. The second part of amendment No. 244 states that the
offices, studios or staff to be used or employed by him in connection with his proposed service should be located within the area for which that service would be provided".
I share the view of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that regional productions are important. They reflect regional values and attitudes and we still have not,


thank God, developed universal Surbitonese in language styles, attitudes and way of living. We still have recognisably different regions, and, rather than deriding it, we should cherish this important fact. By locating studios, personnel, and offices in the regions—for example, Yorkshire Television has an important presence in its region—the companies emphasise the value of regional television productions. Many of these have sufficient merit to go on to be networked. The merit, such as it is, of the famous, long-running saga of "Coronation Street" is based on the fact that it is a reflection of the idiosyncratic northern life rather than the life of Tunbridge Wells or Lewisham. It started out as a risk many years ago, and has become successful, and that was helped by the fact that the production facilities were based in the region. I am pleased that that has been recognised by the Minister.

Mr. Darling: The emphasis on training has been well put by my hon. Friends, and is accepted by the Minister. We welcome his amendments, which have gone some way to meeting the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee.
The point that we are making in new clause 25 is that we have some doubts about whether the industry will train the people that it needs. That is true of all industries, which have not trained as they should, with the result that we do not have people with sufficient skills in the right place at the right time, which has allowed competitor countries to get the better of our industries. We do not want that to happen in broadcasting or the film industry, and that is why we thought that a broadcasting training fund might go some way to meeting the gap.
I would not want to set up such a fund. I hope that the industry would do it for itself. However, my fear is that the very regime that the Government have created will lead to the industry cutting corners, one of which may be training. The requirement that 25 per cent. of the production should come from the independents is another factor, because many of them do not have the facilities, scope, intention or wish to embark on elaborate training schemes. They rely on the bigger companies to do that for them. One cannot base the future of the industry on a fervent wish.
We tabled the new clause in an attempt to get some regulation. I recognise that the forces of the Government are such that, were we to press the new clause to a Division, it might be defeated. As it would be better if it were to survive to fight another day in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

RESEARCH INTO BROADCASTING

`( )—(I) The Commission may undertake, or arrange for other persons to undertake, research into matters related to or connected with—

(a) standards of accuracy and fairness in broadcast journalism; and
(b) the portrayal of violence or sexual conduct in television or radio programmes.

(2) The Commission shall publish the results of any research undertaken in pursuance of subsection (1), and any such report may include an assessment of the following, namely—

(a) the attitudes of the public at large towards the standards of accuracy and fairness in broadcast journalism;
(b) the attitudes of the public at large towards the portrayal of violence of sexual conduct in programmes to which this Part applies; and
(c) the potential effects on attitudes of particular categories of persons of the portrayal of violence or sexual conduct in such programmes or of any failure on the part of such programmes to attain such standards.'.—[Mr. Fisher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 27 —Code of broadcasting practice—
`( )—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to draw up and from time to time review, a code giving guidance to viewers and listeners as to—

(a) standards of accuracy and fairness that should reasonably be expected of broadcasters;
(b) the extent to which privacy of individuals should be expected to be respected by broadcasters;
 (c) practices which should reasonably be followed by broadcasters in the portrayal of violence in programmes to which this Part applies;
(d) practices which should reasonably be followed in connection with the portrayal of sexual conduct in such programmes.
(e) other relevant legislation to which they might refer in deciding whether or not their complaint is legitimate.

(2) It shall be the duty of each broadcasting or regulatory body, when drawing up or revising any code relating to standards and practice for programmes, to reflect the general effect of so much of the code referred to in subsection (1) (as for the time being in force) as is relevant to the programmes in question.
(3) The Commission shall from time to time publish the code referred to in subsection (1) (as for the time being in force).
(5) Before drawing up or revising the code the Commission shall consult—

(a)each broadcasting or regulatory body; and
(b) such other persons as appear to the Council to be appropriate,

including professional associations and other representative bodies to which broadcasters may belong.'.
Government amendments Nos. 232 and 233.
Amendment No. 202, in clause 12, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) In the case of programmes included in non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services, those arrangements shall only be made for undertaking research which, in the opinion of the Commission, will assist them in discharging their duties under sections 6 and 7.'.
Government amendments Nos. 235 to 238, 644, 645, 646.

Mr. Fisher: New clauses 26 and 27 are self-explanatory, so I shall not need to detain the House for long. When discussing quality and standards in Committee, we used certain hallmarks by which to judge them—accuracy, fairness, privacy and restraint in the portrayal of sex and violence. Although a great deal was said in Committee, many hon. Members spoke subjectively. New clause 26 would permit the Commission to undertake research into


broadcasting so that it, and the companies, should know rather more precisely what the public feel about these important matters.
New clause 27 sets out a commitment to a code of broadcasting practice. I believe that the Minister accepts most of these hallmarks of quality. Given that clause 90 puts an obligation for audience research on the companies and that the new clause only puts a gloss on it, makes it more precise, and focuses on the important areas about which there is a great deal of public concern, he has no reason for rejecting it.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Sharp-sighted Members will have noticed that among the professionally drafted Government amendments grouped with the new clause is an amendment prepared by the do-it-yourself brigade; that amendment stands in my name.
My amendment to clause 12—amendment No. 202—would ensure that non-broadcasting programme services such as non-domestic satellite services and licensable programme services would bear only the proportion of any ITC research costs that relate to the ITC's consumer protection functions. Unlike broadcasting services, those services are licensed automatically by the ITC, so they may be made subject to the basic consumer protection requirement that all programmes must obey.
The quality, range and variety of non-broadcasting services is immaterial to their licensing requirements, and what the public think of them is irrelevant to the ITC's responsibilities. Public opinion will determine whether they succeed or fail, and that is a commercial matter solely for the channels concerned. It is not appropriate, therefore, that those services should bear any of the ITC's costs associated with research investigating the content of programming immaterial to their licensing requirements. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will give fair consideration to what is intended to be a fair proposal to help those companies that I have described.

Mr. Buchan: Some of us have waited a long time for the chance to discuss this important part of the Bill. I do not intend to be brief or perfunctory. This part of the Bill is too important for that.
There are two basic problems in the Bill. The first is the problem of quality. We fought that long and hard in Committee, and we have fought it long and hard again today. The second problem relates to the increase in censorship and regulation in a Bill that purports to be deregulatory. In place of the IBA's code and authority, we have introduced six or seven methods of control and censorship over broadcasting. It would have been bad enough if the Government had simply toughened an existing code; at least that would have been honest and could have been understood. With the proliferation of codes and authorities, that which all censorship tends to create—uncertainty on the part of the broadcaster—is created.
The problem facing the broadcasters—by which I mean the writers, producers, directors and all those involved in draconian legislation in connection with investigation into their work—is how they can present material that will not be covered by one or other of the varying codes or authorities. As I understood it, an attempt was made to deal with that problem in this group of amendments. That point has not been made clear yet, although I am sure that

my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench will make it clear. The new clauses are an attempt to get rid of the proliferation of authorities.
When I read the new clauses in this group, I thought that they were an attempt to replace the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new clauses are meant to cut down the number of authorities and the number of codes. Therefore, the role of the Broadcasting Standards Council would be subsumed within that of the ITC or, as I believe was the original intention of the new clauses, replaced by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, because that is the body to which problems can be brought.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a more natural forum, because it deals with complaints. If it is developing codes and standards at the same time, it can better advise people on the areas of difficulty and form a view of the needs of the industry. It has the knowledge and expertise to do that.

Mr. Buchan: That is exactly right, and that is what I had thought the new clause was intended to do. It brought forward the perfectly natural method of complaints being brought in that way. The idea of a complaints Commission will be yet another element that is good in itself, but which becomes another area of potential difficulty for the broadcaster. If the Broadcasting Standards Council was however subsumed in the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, it would give it a more democratic and popular role. It would not be an officially appointed group, but would develop from the popular attitude. That would go a long way to establishing a proper understanding for the broadcaster of the role of the Commission—if it had to have a repressive role—and what its code would be. That is why I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion. If he feels that we are wrong to refer to the ITC here, let us call it—as it could be if it was placed properly in the Bill—the complaints Commission.
New clause 26 refers to the ITC undertaking "research into matters". That is because areas of research are so spread out. The ITC and other bodies set up by the Bill are entitled to instigate research. The Broadcasting Standards Council itself instituted research to formulate a code. If there is to be research, let us leave it in one area. The Broadcasting Research Unit is a good and objective body, and would be competent to undertake this task for one authority—not for several, or for conflicting codes. I appear to the Minister to understand the seriousness of his proposals.
The Bill goes beyond research, to create a code of practice. That is why there must be a single code applying to all broadcasters. Even if the Minister does not understand that, why does the Home Office not understand it? The Home Office has one criminal code, not several. It has one immigration code, not several. If dog licences are introduced, there will be one code, not one for rottweilers and one for Alsatians. Why in heaven's name have we this proliferation of codes? One or the other should go. Even if the Government want a tough code —and I do not—it should at least be a single code, rather than a conflicting set of codes. The proper body for the role would be the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, so the codes should be brought under the one heading of that commission.
That proposal would put the questions of privacy, sexual conduct and violence into the area where they


should be considered. Individual complaints could be brought and considered, but the people doing so could be the people who initiated research.
The Bill has two main aspects: quality, and increasing repression and censorship. The repression and censorship are not because the Bill contains a series of draconian criminal provisions but because it inhibits and represses. It will have failed if action needs to be taken. The effectiveness of censorship is not to take action, but to inhibit the thinker and the writer from coming forward, and to make the publisher afraid. My God, we have seen enough pressure on publishers in the past 12 months. That is how censorship works and that is why we should have a single Commission. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was saying, and I support him completely.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that an element of accountability is involved in standards of broadcast journalism in particular? I share his concern about censorship, but the new clauses also provide for a degree of public accountability—for example, research into the extent to which broadcast journalism is attaining the standards of accuracy and fairness that should reasonably be expected of its broadcasters. That would hold them to account, at least to a certain degree. Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that the NUJ supports the proposals, because it wants standards of fairness and accuracy to be subjected to such scrutiny?

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and brings the matter into its proper focus. There is a widespread feeling that such scrutiny is desirable, although we are concerned that there should not be a proliferation of bodies dealing with different aspects of it. The new clause would introduce an element of public accountability. I am pleased to learn that the NUJ supports the proposal; it has become so used to authorities that it has tended to oppose them in the past.
The best of all possible worlds would be to introduce these sensible changes in the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to look at the proposals again? Perhaps our reference to the Commission is confusing, but I hope that in these two clauses, "the Commission" can be read as the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, which supports the proposals.
Given the Government's obsessive desire to interfere in moral matters by setting up a standards council with the ability to Moggify programmes, it is both important and logical that we should show some concern for what we should really be talking about, which is quality and standards of accuracy, journalism and news coverage.
Nowhere does the Bill—for all its fussy, meddling, moralistic interference in the form of the powers conceded to the Broadcasting Standards Council—show any concern for the basic qualities of television. Those matters are dealt with in the new clauses. We purpose to give the powers to the Broadcasting Complaints Commissions

because, given its experience of complaints and the research that it can Commission, it has the ability to build up expertise and lay down codes and standards.
We seriously need codes and standards for broadcast journalism, and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is the logical authoriy to develop them. I would go so far as to say that, if the new clauses are accepted, as I hope they will be, they will make the Broadcasting Standards Council superfluous, unnecessary and liable to be scrapped, as it Should have been at the outset of our proceedings on the Bill. I strongly support the new clauses, because we should maintain a concern for standards.

Mr.Mellor: Given the hour, I shall deal briefly with the new clauses.
New clause 26 is unnecessary, because research is already well provided for in the Bill. For instance, clause 12 already enables the ITC to Commission audience research for any licensed service programme. Moreover, amendment No. 233 provides for the ITC to Commission research into the effects of programmes on viewers and into the type of programmes that the public would like to see included in future schedules. Clauses 139 and 142 also provide for the Broadcasting Standards Council to monitor broadcast standards and undertake or Commis-sion research into the portrayal of sex and violence and general standards of taste and decency.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: You can do better than that.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is very bouncy for the time of night. I do not know how he spends the rest of his week.

Mr. Tony Banks: In bed.

Mr. Mellor: I shall not inquire too closely into that.
The singling out of matters to be researched, which new clause 26 proposes, would conflict with an appropriate general policy of leaving such decisions to the ITC's discretion. In enabling the Commission itself to conduct research, the new clause raises issues that we discussed at length in Committee. We believe that it is better that research should be Commissioned rather than done in-house, although I accept that that is not a central point.
The trouble with new clause 27 is that it blurs the areas of responsibility for the ITC and the BSC. Essentially, the ITC codes are aimed at the performance and behaviour of the licensees and are not designed to give guidance to viewers. I hope that I can safely say that the matters raised by the new code are already dealt with either in other ITC codes or in the BSC's duties. The BSC's duties relate very much to viewers. That is why, with respect, new clause 27 would not add to the clarity of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), in amendment No. 202, raises an interesting and useful point. He wishes to have it made explicit that research Commissioned by the ITC must be relevant to its regulatory functions. That is implicit, but I am perfectly content to make that explicit, and I shall do so in deference to what my hon. Friend has had to say.

Mr. Tony Banks: I take the Minister of State's point that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has sufficient powers in the Bill to do various things as set out in new clauses 26 and 27. It might be helpful if he would say that he favours the Commission looking into those


various matters in the manner set out in the two new clauses. It is important. Clearly, the Commission, in judging its programme of work and its attitude towards various matters, might be guided by the words that the Minister of State uses in the House this evening. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the provisions of new clauses 26 and 27 contain a great deal of sense, and that these matters would be worthy of consideration by the Commission when it comes to Commissioning research.

Mr. Mellor: I do not go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman. I have not actually examined every single part of the new clause with a view to knowing whether I think that it would otherwise be desirable. I certainly happily undertake to discuss the intentions of the new clause with the BSC and, where relevant, the BCC, so that we might take a view on that matter. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the outcome of those deliberations.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister of State has responded. I accept that there are several places in the Bill where audience research is not only mentioned but specified—clauses 12 and 90, for example. Clause 12 allows only for research into programmes. The Minister of State referred to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission's responsibility to look into matters of sex and violence. That is true, but clause 12 relating to programmes and the new Commission as it relates to sex and violence ignore the matter on which new clauses 26 and 27 home in. As has been said, the requirements of accuracy and fairness are supported by the National Union of Journalists. The Minister of State underestimates the importance of those matters for research. They are not covered by research responsibilities or obligations in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), in a powerful contribution to this short debate, made the good point that, as the Bill progressed in Committee, we stumbled across more and more restrictive aspects. We have a confusing plethora. Not only do we object strongly on grounds of civil and human rights to that enormous paraphernalia of organisations, but we believe that new clause 27 would be a great deal more coherent and give a more considered view about responsibilities.
Obviously on those points the Minister of State is not yet fully convinced, but I am grateful that he has undertaken to consider them. I hope that he will accept that, whereas we understand what he says about clause 12 and clause 19, accuracy and fairness are not covered. Those are matters of considerable public concern. It would benefit everybody involved in broadcasting if there were objective research into those matters as much as into matters of preference and taste in programming. I hope that the Minister of State will bear those remarks in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

PROSCRIPTION OF NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES (No. 2)

`(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, if any person provides a non-domestic satellite service without a licence or continues to provide such a service when a licence

has been revoked, the provisions of sections 165 and 166 shall apply to such services as if they were foreign satellite services.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall endeavour to be brief in dealing with what is a complicated matter. Since I have been raising the issue, a number of amendments have been tabled, including amendment No. 8 which stands in the names of Conservative Members.
I have talked of the introduction of repressive measures of censorship, but another type of censorship occurs when we have too tight a monopoly on ownership, a problem that has been envisaged almost since the commencement of commercial television. As far back as 1955, the Pilkington committee, to which I gave evidence, began to appreciate the problem that would arise as a result of what we now call cross-media ownership, a concept which now exists to a high degree. Pilkington said:
The threat is thought to reside in the fact that, because two of the media of mass communication are owned in some measure by the same people, there is an excessive concentration of power to influence and persuade public opinion".
That was said partly because of the evidence that I gave more than 30 years ago—in relation to control by a press monopolist, Roy Thomson, over Scottish Television. He discarded the criticism in the Pilkington report on the ground that it had come from two folk lorists from Glasgow, of whom I was one and my wife was the other.
That was the beginnings of an understanding of the problem of mass media which we are now witnessing to a greater degree. Pilkington was concerned that it might have two results. One was that when issues were covered by broadcasting or the press, being in the same hands, they might be subjected to undue and uniform editorial influence. The second was that the choice of issues to be reported—the setting of the agenda, as it were—could become distorted. There was a third reason, and Pilkington might have been prophetic, for it said:
Newspapers might unduly publicise and praise, or avoid adverse criticism of, the television service provided by companies in which they had an interest, and might disregard or criticise unfairly any exercise by the authority of its powers against these companies.
In other words, one section of the media could be used to denigrate or support another element of the media—press and television—which is exactly what has been happening with the development of Sky Television, being under the ownership of a major press owner. [Interruption.] The monopoly element involved is enormous. Indeed, it is such that the Government have taken steps in the Bill to deal with cross-media ownership, because they recognise the problem, a problem that we have seen in practice—in the Sunday Times, The Times and The Sun—with the over-pushing of Sky Television and the praising of programmes in articles about the pick of the week and so on, so that even within itself it is unhealthy, not to mention the political control that can be exercised.
There is a huge hole—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) or any of his hon. Friends want to interrupt—if they want to defend Rupert Murdoch—perhaps they will get to their feet and do so. Let them say where they stand. If not, perhaps they will allow me to proceed.
Later, the Broadcasting Act 1981 included some measures to deal with the matter. It does not explicitly preclude control of a television franchise by newspaper interests, but the IBA and the Home Secretary have power to suspend or end a franchise if it appears that the existence of the shareholding has led or is leading to results that are contrary to the public interest. That is the position at which we have now arrived. While the legislation has no explicit prohibitions on cross-media ownership, the underlying philosophy is clear. Restrictions have been thoroughly entrenched through an enabling statutory framework and by the IBA through its own regulations.
12 midnight
We have seen the experience in other countries such as America where the problem led to a decision in the Supreme Court against cross-media ownership. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. He had to divest himself of some of his holdings as a result. We have seen the problem in Australia—which I have just visited for a week to see the broadcasting system. Who was involved? It was Rupert Murdoch. What we face in Britain has had to be dealt with by at least two other countries.
If the Government had mentioned Rupert Murdoch, News International or Sky Television, the Bill would have been hybrid and would have had to be dealt with in an entirely different way. That is why I raised the matter. I was given a ruling that was constitutionally inevitable— that the Bill was not hybrid because it did not mention a particular company. It exempts from the monopoly ownership rule what is called broadcasting by non-domestic satellite television stations. There is only one such station. All of us here could own our own stations and call it non-domestic broadcasting by satellite. The only problem is that we cannot afford to do it. It is like saying that everyone is entitled to eat in the Ritz every day.
Almost the worst aspect of the Bill is that, according to The Guardian, the Minister has said that he will not pull the plug on News International. He can deny it later if he wishes. The Government intend to exclude from the Bill the operation of News International. We should remember that every other television company will be subject to the restrictions imposed by the Bill on holding. They are also restricted in terms of nationality. Proprietors must be either British or members of an EEC country. That is deliberate. Sky Television and any others which broadcast via the Astra satellite are excluded from the restrictions in the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's arguments will sound even more exciting when they are made in the debate that we are due to have, and which no one can avoid, on the subject of whether it is right that there should be cross-media ownership restrictions on Sky Television and others. The hon. Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to the amendment only if Sky continued to broadcast without a licence. He is dealing with a relatively limited regulatory point. Perhaps after the number of hours of debate that we have had, what he is saying about Sky might be better placed in the debate on that specific point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what had been lurking in my mind for several minutes. I was shielding my

ignorance about the complexities of the Bill. My suspicions are now confirmed that what the hon. Gentleman has been saying does not have an awful lot to do with the new clause before the House.

Mr. Buchan: I usually agree with your suspicions and sometimes even with your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but neither your suspicion nor a consequent ruling on it would be correct in this case. If someone behaves in such a way that the ITA has to intervene, the application of the clauses applying to foreign satellite stations should apply to the non-domestic broadcasting station.
It is late at night. I welcome the Minister's intervention to discuss the topic in the amendments to be debated tomorrow. An element of the matter can be dealt with then and I shall take great joy in repeating my arguments, hopefully at an earlier time of night. I thank the Minister for his intervention.
The amendment proposes that if News International is to be exempted from the nationality rule that applies to everyone else and the control on the amount of monopoly holding, it should be treated as a non-British or foreign satellite television. If the ITC object to it, it can not only proscribe it, but take action on the advertisers and people who make the programme from Britain. It is a draconian measure, but we have been dealt a draconian measure in reverse by the Minister, and that is why I advocate this provision.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am a little puzzled by the new clause's consequences. I am not here to praise Rupert Murdoch, but I want to know whether my hon. Friend intends to bury him because I would object to that. The amendment makes Sky Television subject to licensing, as I take it. What is the effect of that licensing? I presume, since the cross-media ownership factor does not apply to satellite, that it would not have any effect.

Mr. Buchan: It says that, without prejudice to clause 13, if a non-domestic satellite service is operating and its operator does not choose to seek a licence or continues to provide such a service after a licence has been applied for and the ITC has decided to revoke it, the legislation referring to a foreign satellite shall apply.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; it is good of him. What consequences and restrictions are placed on the operator if he applies for a licence?

Mr. Buchan: If he applies for a licence within the normal regulations there would be enormous consequences with regard to holding. If he does not apply for such a licence, but continues to have a satellite broadcast from abroad, different provisions prevail. I am asking for that to happen if he continues to provide such a service when a licence has been revoked. If he does not have a licence, there is nothing we can do about it, except to treat his satellite as foreign-based. That is how Mr. Murdoch would be treated because he broadcasts from Luxembourg. If he applies for a licence and what he broadcasts is not liked by the ITC it can be discontinued and the licence revoked. It can be treated in the same way as a foreign satellite. I agree that it is a most draconian measure and good, quiet resolutions will come in tomorrow in the form of amendments, to which I shall give verbal support and my vote.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not suppose that in your position as Deputy Speaker you have had a chance to look at today's edition of The Guardian which has just come out and has a headline,
Parliament 'misled' on Rover deal".
I wonder whether you have been informed about whether a statement is to be made by the appropriate Trade and Industry Minister about the Select Committee report, which reveals that there has been a gigantic fiddle by the Government over the Rover sweeteners of £38 million, as revealed in this morning's paper. Surely we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not received any request for a statement. Mr. David Mellor——

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since we are discussing the Broadcasting Bill and people outside want to know what is happening in Parliament, surely it would be right and proper for a Minister to come and tell us about this gigantic fiddle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the form, and that I am not responsible for the attendance or otherwise of Ministers in the House.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) referred to clauses 165 and 166, which are draconian clauses intended to catch satellite services which do not originate in the United Kingdom and which thus cannot be regulated by the ITC. The clauses are backstop provisions designed to deal with such a service. It is not necessary for the non-domestic satellite services with which the hon. Gentleman is mainly concerned to come within the ambit of clauses 165 and 166, because they will be regulated by the Independent Television Commission on matters such as taste, decency, balanced news reporting and so on.
Where a licensee was providing an unacceptable service, the ITC would have substantial powers to enforce licence conditions, including ultimately the possibility of withdrawing the licence. If the operator continued to provide a service after his licence had been removed, he would be guilty of an offence, under clause 13, of providing a licensable service without a licence. He would therefore be liable to prosecution. With respect to the hon. Member, I think that that is a sufficient deterrent.
The point about clauses 165 and 166 is that this apparatus is not available in the case of services originating outside the jurisdiction. It is for those services that they are needed. In the light of that, and knowing that the hon. Gentleman has just been warming up his tonsils for his assault on the substantive issue of satellite cross-media ownership tomorrow, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Buchan: I thank the Minister for his generous invitation. That is twice that I have been invited to talk tomorrow, once by the Minister and once by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the kindness that is about, I will make a long speech tomorrow.
If it were not so late, and if all the troops had been on duty, I would sadly have pushed this to a vote. I will not do so. I will resume the argument tomorrow. Of course, there will be yet another stage—before their Lordships.
Listening to the reactionary nature of the Conservative party, we sometimes have to look to their Lordships for a liberal attitude. I look forward to that.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not recall any words of mine that were an open invitation to the hon. Gentleman to speak, at length or briefly, on any future occasion. We must wait until that occasion.

Motion, and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING SERVICES

`(1) An applicant for a licence to provide any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) may declare that he intends to provide a Christian broadcasting service under this section; and in that case, if his application is successful, his licence shall (in addition to any other conditions which, subject to this section, apply to that licence) be subject to the conditions set out in subsection (5) (in this section referred to as "christian broadcasting conditions").

(2) The services are—

(a) A non-domestic satellite service (as defined by section 38(2));
(b) A licensable programme service (as defined in section 41(1));
(c) An additional service (as defined by section 43(1));
(d) A sound broadcasting service to which section 78 applies;
(e) A licensable sound programme service (as defined by section 104(1)).
(f) An additional service (as defined by section 106(1)).

(3) Where an applicant for a licence for a service mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) makes a declaration under subsection (1), paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule 2 shall not apply to him; and accordingly the persons mentioned in that paragraph shall not be disqualified from holding a licence for such a service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(4) A licence subject to Christian broadcasting conditions may not be issued to or held by any person except a body which is a charity registered under the Charities Act 1960 whose principal object is the propagation of Christianity.

(5) The Christian broadcasting conditions are that

(a) a substantial proportion of the programmes shall be directed to—

(i) explaining what the Christian faith is and its relevance in the modern world;
(ii) encouraging an improvement in moral standards in private and public life and an awareness of Christian ethics; and
(iii) providing Christian counselling services.

(b) the programmes broadcast shall be predominatly of European origin;

(c) there shall be no broadcast appeals or requests for finance or other material benefits for the licensee or any person connected or associated with the licensee.

(6) Where the licence for any such service as is mentioned in paragraphs (a). (b) or (c) of subsection (2) is subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(a)section 6(4) shall apply with the omission of the words from "and they shall also" to the end; and
(b) without prejudice to its powers under section 42(4) the Commission may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that section 6(1) shall, in its application to that service, have effect with the addition of the following paragraph—

"(e) that undue prominence is not given in its programmes to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters."

(7) So far as it relates to religious matters section 84(2)(b) shall not apply to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions.

(8) In the application of

(a) section 6(1)(c) (as substituted by virtue of section 42(4));
(b) section 6(1)(e) (as added by virtue of subsection 6(b) above); and
(c) section 84(2)(a),

to any service which is licensed subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, those provisions shall not be construed as imposing any duty on the licensed service which is inconsistent with those conditions; but shall be construed as prohibiting dominance by one particular church or ecclesiastical group.

(9) In its application to an application for a licence to provide a licensable sound programme service subject to Christian broadcasting conditions, section 105(2) shall have effect as if the reference to section 84(2) were a reference to that subsection as modified in accordance with subsections (7) and (8) above.'.—[Mr. Michael Alison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At first sight, the proposed new clause might seem to be somewhat sweeping and ambitious, particularly as the Minister of State has already offered so much that was not originally in the Bill on religious broadcasting. I make no apology for initiating through the new clause a brief debate, I hope, on religious broadcasting and Christian broadcasting in particular.
Large numbers of our constituents regard this aspect of the Bill as easily the most interesting and important part of it. Letters to colleagues reinforce that view. The Christian religion and Christian broadcasting are still very important in Britain. For example, 62 per cent. of the population see at least one religious television programme a month, and that is a very high proportion.
As for radio, BBC Radio 4's "Sunday" programme has a larger audience than "The World this Weekend", while the alternative on BBC Radio 2, "Good Morning, Sunday", has twice the audience of "Sunday". These compete with a number of local radio religious broadcasts. We are not talking about a marginal interest.
It follows from those figures that the idea that Britain is largely a secular nation cannot be sustained. Indeed, ascertainable evidence shows exactly the opposite. It is true that only 11 per cent. go to church weekly and 20 per cent. monthly—a much higher figure, incidentally, than those who attend sporting events the day before. But, according to the IBA itself, the strength of support for Christian views and values in Great Britain is extremely high. The latest IBA survey on religious beliefs says:
In total claimed membership of any Christian faith accounted for 79 per cent. of people. Even amongst people who are not at all religious, two out of three describe themselves as 'Christians'. 13 per cent. of people admitted having no religion.
A MORI survey in October of last year showed that 84 per cent. of people claimed that their religion was "Christian", while a Gallup survey of last December gave the figure as 77 per cent. On those percentages Britain is a Christian country.
12.15 am
I said earlier that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had shown himself to be generous in his response to the Christian and more widely religious broadcasting lobby. He has also been painstaking,

perceptive and sensitive in his response to lobbying. Those qualities take time and effort and many hon. Members as well as many people outside are deeply obliged to him for his personal interest in these matters.
The lobbying group with which I have been associated, which includes CARE campaigns, the Evangelical Alliance and Christian Standards in Society, lobbied for three objectives. First, we requested, in the words of the Bishop of St. Albans, who is a member of our group, and nine other denominational leaders, that
religious programmes be specified among those which would comprise a properly diverse output.
I am glad to see that Government amendment No. 114 specifically responds and gives effect to that request. We shall debate it later, but suffice to say at this stage that we are grateful to the Minister for honouring the undertaking that he gave in Committee and elsewhere about that improvement to the Bill.
Secondly, we expressed concern that Christian and other religious bodies were being restricted in a way unprecedented in previous broadcasting legislation. The Bill excluded them from holding any ITC licence and thus from the possibility of managing their own programme schedules and competing in the market place. In the long term, this exclusion would mean inadequate funding for religious programmes and consequently a decline in quality. Therefore, we asked the Minister of State to think again about the exclusion of responsible Christian bodies from the management of television channels. The Minister thought again and to good effect.
Government amendment No. 352 makes the radical, fundamental change to the original Bill by lifting the disqualification of religious bodies from holding television service licences for both non-domestic satellite and cable services. Such bodies are thus to be enfranchised as owners and managers in their own right in this area. This matter will be debated when we come to the Government amendment, but my hon. and learned Friend has given us everything that we could possibly ask for and we are deeply obliged to him.
In the light of these two major changes and improvements to the Bill, secured with the full co-operation and active assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, it might seem churlish to land him with this lengthy new clause at a quarter past midnight. However, there remains a third objective which my group has not yet secured. It relates to certain restrictions in the Bill that have been dubbed with the code phrases "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence." Clause 84(2)(a) says:
undue prominence is 6not given in its programmes … to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on religious matters".
Clause 84(2)(b) says:
there are excluded from its programmes all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on religious matters".
In the view of the group that I represent, those limitations are unacceptably restrictive and inhibiting and incompatible with that very generosity towards religious broadcasting, more widely, as represented by the proposed Government amendment that I have mentioned. Thus it appears paradoxically, to our legal advisers at least, that even if a Christian group were to be granted a licence, while it would be free to broadcast programmes on materialism or easy sexual morals or something quite incompatible or foreign to the Christian religion, it could


not broadcast about the Christian faith. A radio station run by a local church would not be able to broadcast its own worship to the community that it served. That seems ludicrous, to put it mildly.
I know that the Minister believes that the Bill's provisions in this regard are not as restrictive as we fear, but our anxieties about restrictions on religious matters were reinforced when the shadow Radio Authority contradicted the Home Office. In January, the Home Office was good enough to listen to a tape recording of a typical programme broadcast by a sane and Christian radio station from the Isle of Man, and said that it would be acceptable under the Bill: it certainly did not want such broadcasts to be banned. In March, however, the shadow Radio Authority was asked for its views about the programme. It said that the "editorialising" clauses in the Bill would prevent such programming, and would be the death knell of the service as it currently functioned.
Incidentally, the Home Office—and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister in particular—may be interested to know that the governor of the prison on the Isle of Man thought that the programmes were so good for his inmates that he extended radio listening hours for the sole purpose of tuning in to them. That was the programme that the shadow Radio Authority deemed "unsuitable" and likely to be caught by the Bill's "editorialising" provisions.
That is why I have tabled the new clause—drafted with the assistance of the National Council for Christian Standards in Society and the particular help of Mr. Gareth Littler and Lady Watherston,who are members of the society,and designed to provide for an active but responsible propagation of the Christian faith by respectable, charitable, non-profit-making European licence holders, subject to all the safeguards against abuse that are already in the Bill.
John Wesley had the freedom of the open air in the 17th century, largely because he was banned from more official channels of communication. He made good use of the open air. We want to ensure that, if John Wesley were alive today, officialdom would not ban or inhibit him from the airwaves. If the Minister of State can show us a more satisfactory way forward than the new clause, I will gladly seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for the cogency with which he has set out his case, and for the generous and handsome tribute that he has paid to my efforts. I am very touched by what he has said; but I like to think that what we have done was done with the approbation of every Member of the House. The aim was to strike a fair balance between ensuring that responsible Christian broadcasters had the opportunity to participate in the expanded access granted to, in particular, local radio and television services, and maintaining adequate protection against the exploitive religious programming that might be provided by religious cults—or by the American evangelists who have almost brought our religious broadcasting into disrepute.
Lest anyone should imagine that these are fanciful concerns, let me draw attention to a provocative letter in today's Times, in which a director of the Unification Church says how important it is for the country's moral welfare that the Moonies should be able to broadcast more widely to the nation. I trust I am not alone in the House in thinking that we should resist that.
As my right hon. Friend has said, as a result of the letters that we have received, and of representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, responsible Christian broadcasters will be permitted to own local radio stations, local cable channels and on-DBS satellite channels—subject to the discretion of the ITC or the Radio Authority, as appropriate. They will not be permitted to own national television or radio stations; I think that that is a fair distinction.
So far so good, but my right hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a problem in relation to the "no editorialising" and "no undue prominence" arrangements which were not geared specifically to religious programmes and which might appear to take away with one hand what we have given with the other. That is not our intention.
The Home Office has sought to argue, because it is what we believe, that neither of the provisions would preclude, say, a local group of churches with their own community radio station from broadcasting their own services. It would be ludicrous if it had that effect.
But I acknowledge that there is a grey area here. There are a number of opinions, not all of which are mutually consistent. Therefore, it would be to everyone's advantage if the matter were sorted out in a different way. That is what I propose to do, and I want briefly to give the House details of how we propose to tackle that.
First, there will be a requirement relating to fit and proper persons, offensiveness, advertising and restrictions on donations. All those will apply to religious broadcasting. That is right. Advertising will be allowed, but it has to be subject to a tight code. We do not want to see the free and easy approach to donations that has appeared in the United States. People not regarded as fit and proper persons should be excluded and the ITC and the Radio Authority will have the power to do that.
I propose to remove completely the "no undue prominence" and "no editorialising" arrangements from religious broadcasting and to replace them with a concept yet to be fully worked out. There would be a new requirement for all licensees that the ITC and the Radio Authority are prepared to see go forward as owners of stations that any treatment by them of religious matters must be responsible and not exploitive—concepts that will be fleshed out by the ITC and the Radio Authority in codes on programme standards.
I hope that that will prevent the inappropriate abuse of the airwaves by extreme religious groups while at the same time making it clear that legitimate Christian broadcasters have nothing to fear by the public protection devices made necessary in order to prevent any movement across the Atlantic of the unacceptable manifestations of religious broadcasting which are all too prominent there.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and others who have continued to point out to me that, although we have moved considerable distances on the issues, there is nevertheless scope for moving yet further. It is a difficult and elusive balance to strike to allow those who are responsible free rein while restricting those who are irresponsible. I hope that we have got nearer that elusive balance in what I have had to say, and I hope that on that basis my right hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Darling: It may be appropriate to state the Opposition's position on the new clause, although if it is not to be pressed it may be academic.
Many of the problepms that we are discussing would not have arisen if the Government had at the outset said that it would be necessary for broadcasters to provide a wide range of programmes which would include religious programmes. In other words, there should be something similar to the present requirement for broadcasters to produce religious programmes of the sort that we see today. It is because the Government made no such provision that, understandably, a number of religious organisations and churches wrote to hon. Members asking that suitable amendments be made.
The feeling was that somehow religious organisations were being banned from access to the airwaves under the new television and radio regime. I do not think that that was ever the Government's intention, but it would have been far better if at the outset it had been clear that broadcasters would be required to produce a wide range of programmes, not just religious but including religious programmes, so that people could have access to programmes that they undoubtedly want to see, such as "Songs of Praise".
But there is a difference between acknowledging that fact and going on to say that they want something more akin to a television or radio station the object of which is to promote one particular view of religion.
There is not a single Christian view on anything. Christianity is but one faith, but there are many different churches within that religion. It would be impossible to create a Christian radio or television station that was even slightly acceptable to all who profess to practise the Christian faith.
12.30 am
I am not sure whether the amendment was intended as a stalking horse or to be enacted, but on the basis that it was meant to find its way into legislation, I offer the following observations. It would be impossible to accept a proposal that allowed a Christian church or organisation access to radio or television without at the same time permitting other religious interests precisely the same facility—to argue that Christians should enjoy access but that those who follow the Islamic faith, for example, should not. Such a proposition would immediately fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What is to prevent religious cults from gaining access to the airwaves in the way that the Minister described? I am sure that few right hon. and hon. Members would like to see the Moonies or similar organisations enjoying such access. I feel sure also that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the general public would not want to see in this country the situation that obtains in the United States, where television stations are owned and operated by organisations claiming to be of a religious or even Christian nature but which are really fronts for other, wholly undesirable groups that should never be given access to our airwaves.
Many people in this country who never go near a church from one year to the next may still consider themselves to be Christians or adherents of another faith. I am sure that even they would feel uneasy if they learned that all kinds of "churches" were to be given unrestricted access to our airwaves without question, and without any

promise of a balanced approach—running mere pro-paganda stations for publicising views that might not command anything like popular support.
If new clause 32 ever finds its way into an Act, it would create wholly unwelcome problems in British broadcasting. I am glad that the Government's view appears to be that it should be resisted. I was pleased to infer also from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that he does not intend to press his proposal. He indicated one of the difficulties that could arise when he spoke of the Christian view. I do not agree that such a thing exists. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example of sexual morals, but I do not believe that there is a concluded view on what is right or wrong in terms of matters that the hon. Gentleman would describe as being concerned with sexual morality. It would be wrong unquestioningly to hand over the airwaves to any group in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described.
The analogy with John Wesley is wholly misplaced. No one seeks to prevent individuals from gathering wherever they choose to debate particular views. That is quite different from giving someone the ability and the right to reach into the sitting room of every house throughout the country. I feel sure that the right hon. Member for Selby acknowledges that that is so.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) talks as though the country's entire airwaves are to be handed over to some religious group or another. He fails to acknowledge the new situation in which a large number of radio and television outlets will be opened, giving rise to the possibility that a particular point of view or subject matter may be concentrated on one channel far more than has ever been possible with the traditional forms of broadcasting with which we are all familiar, and which the hon. Gentleman may prefer. In addressing ourselves to the new structure, it is surely reasonable to consider whether a channel could reflect a predominantly Christian outlook, as understood by the people running it.

Mr. Darling: I do not take that view. I agree that in future there will be more and more opportunities for broadcasting, both on television and on radio, but I would be reluctant for people to tune in to the Catholic station, the Protestant station, the Muslim station, the Hindu station, whether it was cable, satellite or any other kind of television. I would also be reluctant to have a Labour party station or a Conservative party station. We really——

Mr. Roger Gale: We have four BBC channels.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's paranoia is getting the better of him. Perhaps it is not surprising at this early hour in the morning.
I do not like the idea of dedicated radio and television channels on which all that one gets is propaganda. Surely that is not the future of broadcasting. Surely, even in the Government model of broadcasting, there is some sense of balance and questioning. It would be wrong to throw up our hands and say that, because there are many more channels on television and radio, we should hand them over to whoever wants them, without question.
Many Conservative Members, having achieved a Christian channel, would find that there was a request for


a channel that put forward the views of Islam and they would howl for it to be closed down because they disagreed with what it said. I daresay that those who disagreed with what the Christian channel was broadcasting would be asking for that to be shut down. Sooner or later someone would say something which caused offence to someone else.
I do not think that the majority of people in this country want channels to be dedicated to a single view, although I agree that the opportunity for that exists—as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested—but it is not an opportunity that I want to take.
I prefer the model that we have developed which has a sense of balance and questions any views which are put forward, so that we do not end up with channels broadcasting propaganda, and people tuning in to the propaganda channel that suits them.
The majority of people find religious broadcasting satisfactory at present. At the risk of sounding conservative, that is how I would prefer to see it remain and I see no need for the type of change that the right hon. Member for Selby was promoting. The change frightens me, many other hon. Members and many people outside this place.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to congratulate the Minister on considering the representations made to him and going a long way towards meeting them. I welcome the fact that he will take editorialising in hand and make a definite statement about where the line should be drawn on that issue.
Surely, when we are discussing the widening of broadcasting, it is only right that we should consider the widening of religious and Christian broadcasting. I cannot agree with the Opposition spokesman who put forward the view tonight that we can discuss the widening of broadcasting in the Bill, but for some reason Christianity should not be allowed to widen its net within the scope of broadcasting as it is envisaged in the Bill.
I should have thought that Christianity had as much right as any other section of the community to make its views known. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that it is hard to define the Christian view because each denomination would put forward its own interpretation of the Christian religion, and I can well understand that. That gets us into debate and into controversy.
I was slightly amused when the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who moved the new clause, referred to John Wesley. If John Wesley had been living today, the BBC would not have allowed him on its channels. He had only a tiny following to start with, and until he had a respectable number of followers, meeting houses and churches, he would have been banned from the airways.
We then have to define who are the extremists. John Wesley was looked on as being very extreme in his day. We all have to decide where we stand. We all know whom we consider to be extreme, but from where they stand, they see their view point. Christianity and the Bible doctrines make their way by arguments and the proclamation of the gospel message. Broadcasting should make it possible—within reason, for there must be reason in this—for the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If one does not like something on the radio or television, one can always turn it off. No one is compelled to listen or watch anything. I cannot agree with the

argument that it was all right for John Wesley to be an open air preacher, but one would not want him to preach in one's drawing room. If one does not want him in one's drawing room, one can always shut off the set. One does not need to listen to him there.
Christianity should have the same rights as all other religions. I should have no objections to Islam broadcasting its teachings. As a Protestant, I believe in civil and religious liberties for everyone, and it has a right to broadcasting. If it said things with which I did not agree, I should not say that its broadcasts should be stopped—I should say that it was entitled to put forward its view.
Christianity is not a plant that needs greenhouse treatment. It can stand on its own legs and make its own way forward. The Christian religion, which was up against everything when Jesus Christ rose from the dead and sent forth his apostles, carried the world before it—a world of temples, paganism and false religion. Without any establishment, finance or anything that the world could do for it—it was on its own—it was able to carry the day. I have no doubt that Christianity will make a vital contribution to properly controlled religious broadcasting.
I trust that the Minister will persevere. As a Calvinist, he may know something about the perseverence of the saints, although my Arminian friends would know nothing about that. I hope that we shall end up with an Act that deals sensibly with religious broadcasting, so that all people who want to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed will be satisfied that they were at least listened to and respected, and got the same deal as others. That is all that we are asking for. We are not asking for patronage or a special place. We are asking for our rightful place, so that the message of the gospel can be proclaimed in broadcasting.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I add my tribute to the Minister's response to the different approaches made to him. I support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). Perhaps it is worthwhile asking why there is concern that there should be freedom of Christian and religious broadcasting. Over the years, there has been censorship. For example, it was not until the advent of ITV that I got the opportunity to broadcast, because the establishment keeps its own grip on the issues.
We must consider what happened in the BBC this year. During Lent, the period before Easter which is one of the most sacred periods in the Christian calendar, it was the task of the religious division of the BBC to get a response from the unbelievers to that most sacred period, which should have been an opportunity for Christians to meditate.
12.45 am
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, the Bill as it appeared originally led many people to believe that there would be a limitation beyond understanding on Christian broadcasting. I welcome the assurance that the Government will consider the matter further. I trust that they will remove the ambiguities. If those who are responsible for implementing the changes in the legislation have their own interpretation, there is obviously a need for clarification. With regard to freedom of choice, I am amazed that the Government, who believe in market forces, and the official Opposition, who regularly speak on behalf of minorities, argue that we must


be careful lest we open doors and allow other people to put their views forward. If we dismiss the concept of a Christian perception of issues, perhaps we misunderstand a broad consensus of Christian morality and aspects of Christian teaching.
I can certainly understand finer distinctions of theology. However, many of us may have a perception of the Christian aspects of a particular situation. If secular writers are right to present their interpretations of Christianity—and quite often they are critical of it with justification—it is equally proper that Christian writers and producers should be presenting their views so that people can make their own choice.
With regard to censorship, is it not amazing that when issues are raised about the standard and quality of secular broadcasting the reply is that people can always turn off? Why is the same standard not applicable for those who dislike Christian broadcasting? In the past, the Christian Church was prepared to go to the market place, to the Forum and even into Caesar's household. I welcome the fact that the Christian Church is beginning at last to awaken to the use of modern media to extend its message so that men and women can believe.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the two major concessions that he made earlier and particularly for the concession that he has announced tonight. It is a particularly difficult balance to strike to find a way of excluding—to put it bluntly—the Moonies while allowing people to preach the gospel. It is important to say "preach the gospel" rather than "give an objective, distant view of Christian ideas."
It is a pity that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have chosen to resurrect once again the old multi-faith issue. That was satisfactorily put to bed in the Education Reform Act 1988 and a perfectly satisfactory formula was found to take account of the legitimate interests of other faiths while bearing in mind that this is still predominantly a Christian country. If the ideas expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister are developed along similar lines, I am sure that they will be fruitful.
The compromise, upon which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spent much time working, on the old "no editorialising rule" was widely accepted as it was originally interpreted. The religious advisory body for TVS, which has representatives of the major Churches and is chaired by a bishop of my church, Bishop Murphy-O'Connor, was in favour of the Government's compromise. It is only in the past couple of weeks, since the Radio Authority made its revelations, that it has become clear where the flaws are in this approach. We should be likely to eliminate genuine Christian organisa-tions from putting over a genuinely Christian point of view.
In developing his constructive and positive further concessions, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that it is important that we do not leave the whole power of interpreting the concept of responsibility to the broadcasting authorities. It is important that it is enshrined in law that the basic distinction is not whether people are allowed to put a view over responsibly or not, in some secular sense of the word, but whether radio stations owned by Christians put over views that are fundamentally Christian but also inter-denominational when giving different Christian Churches a go, or whether they are giving a narrow plug to their own sect. That must

be the key distinction. Providing a station offers a reasonable amount of inter-denominational access, it should be deemed to be responsible. I say that only because the examples given by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev Martin Smyth) suggest why there are good grounds for not wholly trusting the secular broadcasting authorities to interpret rules favourably to the Christian Churches.
I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend has been as patient with other hon. Members as he has been with myself. He has replied to several long letters, point by point, and I am sure that we shall resolve the issue satisfactorily, thanks to his efforts.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for his concessions and for the seriousness with which he has dealt with the representa-tions so far. I must reflect, slightly amusedly, on the alternatives open to people when confronted with religious broadcasts—either those transmitted on the radio or personal appearances. It is easy to turn off a religious broadcast on the radio, but less easy if one is listening to a live speech by John Wesley or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) outside one's window. The argument must be, therefore, that it is perfectly proper to give people the choice.
The option that has been argued for is either for the majority religious group in the country or for the largest minority one. If we are properly to allow the broadcast media to transmit the range of our culture, it would be ludicrous to exclude religion and programmes that intend to broadcast and share the message of religion. If we allow radio to broadcast music, drama and current affairs, it would be unfair and illogical to do that, just as it would be unfair and illogical to allow the transmission of radio and television programmes to the ethnic minorities without them being able, as appropriate, to have their proper religious content so that the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh minorities could also have their way. Those of us who argue for Christian broadcasting permission do not seek to exclude that for other faiths as well. Of all the faiths that should have that opportunity historically and numerically in this country, it must be the Christian faith.
It has not yet been pointed out to the Minister that, if we are allowing freedom of choice, one alternative that it is right to allow to be broadcast over the airwaves is a spiritual alternative. I have had the experience, as I am sure other hon. Members have had, of being at home late in the evening and wanting a restful alternative on the radio. One cannot find one. One either finds talk, which is not what one wants, or unsuitable music. People may want consolation, support, guidance, help or even prayer. All that should be available. It is only proper that we allow the spiritual side of everybody's life, which is available at different times and in different degrees, to be reflected in those who own and transmit through our radio and television network.
I take seriously the Minister's point that some sects would seek to use the power that ownership in the radio and television media gave them to broadcast propaganda, including evil propaganda. Like everyone else, I oppose the idea of recruitment into closed sects such as the Moonies and other similar denominations, with all the disadvantages that it entails for the recruit. Surely the answer to that problem is that those who broadcast religious programmes should be required, under properly


regulated arrangements, to declare who they are, who owns and runs the programme and what name their sect goes by. That will make it perfectly possible for people to understand who is in charge. If we required that, we should still take the risk—as we do now—that some people will be betrayed into something that they do not entirely understand, but the risk will be far less substantial if there is a requirement to sign and identify what is being provided in a proper and effective way, and if people are then allowed to choose.

Mr. Darling: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Most hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that having the Moonies on the radio or television is a bad thing and that we are not very keen on it. How does one draw the line between an organisation such as the Moonies and an organisation to which none of us would object—the mainstream Church perhaps? Even under the scheme that the hon. Gentleman proposes, I do not suppose that the Moonies would say, "We are Moonies. We are out to con and brainwash people to get lots and lots of money. That is our true intention." They are a little more sophisticated than that. How does one draw the line? Are we not stuck with the fact that if we use the "You can switch it off" argument, it must apply to all denominations and not just to one or two?

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question, to which there are two answers. First, some of the activities of certain sects have been ruled illegal and would be governed by other parts of the law. Certainly, the Unification Church falls outside the law in some respects. Secondly, I should be happy to entrust a decision about the distinction between a small, perfectly proper sect and a small sect that may be regarded as improper by a majority of people to a proper advisory body, which could at all times have an accountable reporting function.
Of course it is a difficult distinction, but our case is that one starts with the faith for which there is substantial current demand. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made it clear that we are talking about large numbers of people. Of course, with small denominations, the distinction is more difficult but it cannot be beyond the wit of humans to determine a pragmatic method of deciding, always subject to revision.
I listened to the Minister's remarks about what he hoped to do in relation to the third proposal that had been put to him. I should like to explain what those of us who wish him to adopt that proposal are seeking to achieve.
Let me quote from the IBA's fifth background paper, produced for the Report stage:
We agree that the prohibition of control of mainstream television services at a national level by bodies whose aims are wholly or mainly religious should be maintained. We would not consider it unreasonable in principle, however, for permission to be granted to such bodies to hold a licence for cable and satellite channels, particularly where these services are provided on a subscription or pay per view basis. Clause 6(4) would be a restraint on possible abuse. We do not believe that the 'no editorialising' requirement of Clause 6(4) would prevent the broadcasting of religious services or acts of worship which coincided with the religious affiliation of the owner of a service. Clause 6(4) would only be infringed if the service was used to promote the particular religious views and opinions of the person providing the service.
We should not allow the matter to depend on what the IBA believes; it should be a matter of law, and clear in law. Moreover, I do not think—I hope that it is not the view of the House—that we should prevent someone who owns a

service from preaching or teaching or sharing a religious service that reflects his view. For example, I refer to a Nonconformist view, a Presbyterian view, a Roman Catholic view, a Methodist view, an Anglican view or anything else—even a different view and a known different view on key tenets of the Christian faith. Surely those matters must be able to be transmitted, irrespective of whether they are the views of the owner of the station in question.
I presume that the Minister of State would hope to address the link problem—the micro version of which my previous point is the macro version, which was pointed out by the Isle of Man authorities when it looked as though they might be running foul of the law—so that, as was made clear in a briefing that the Minister will have seen, small radio stations which transmit at Christian festivals such as the Greenbelt festival or the other examples cited and Llandudno Methodist Easter festival can do their job without running foul of the law.
1 am
Is it right, as has been put to me in one of the letters that I have received, that it is still illegal to advertise sales of the Bible on television? If that is the case, is it not ludicrous that we can allow advertising of many other things—literature and so on—all of which, of necessity, must be less valuable? If that is the case, do we not need to do one last bit of tidying up of the law as well?

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I appreciate that the hour is late, so I shall not unduly detain the House. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the tolerance with which he has listened to the arguments in Standing Committee and recognised that the undue prominence provisions in the Bill, mainly clause 84(2), should be amended. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we have been guided by the National Council for Christian Standards in Society and Mr. Gareth Littler, who have indicated the strength of the arguments about over-editorialising and undue prominence. Many hon. Members will recognise that the major problem is that religious broadcasting has been sanitised. I was quite surprised by the secular controls of the present regime upon religious broadcasting and the impact it has on the simple matter of spreading the gospel.
In Standing Committee we removed the worst aspects of American religious broadcasting. At the same time, we created a framework that is acceptable to the majority of society, giving freedom of religious broadcasting. This is the last piece in the jigsaw. I urge the House to endorse the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. His clear, strong and well-thought-out ideas should be introduced into the other place so that we can then commend them when they return here.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It looks as though it has fallen to me to deliver the epilogue in the debate. Therefore, I shall be as brief as possible. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has fought a distinguished arid persistent battle in a worthy cause. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends who fought hard in Committee, athough I was not a member of the Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is absolutely right to draw attention to the considerable number of letters that many hon. Members have received on this matter. The tenor of letters that I have received


from my constituents is that the Government are bringing forward a Broadcasting Bill, yet they seem to be penalising the Christian faith. I inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that this is a Christian country, and it is right and proper that our constituents expect that we should ensure that the Christian faith occupies a central role in broadcasting religious matters. I am not opposed to opportunities for minority faiths, but we must remember that we must not ignore the majority —the Christian people of this country.
I appreciate that the Minister has concerns. I like to think that he is concerned not so much about the Moonies as about the heresies of some of our bishops and that he is anxious to keep some of those off the air. I have no doubt that, being a good lawyer, he will keep his own counsel on that issue.
The Bill is before us to provide a framework to cope with the advance in technology that has taken place. The diversity is already there. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed that out. We are trying in the Bill to create the framework within which that technology can be made to work to advantage and without risk of abuse.
I congratulate the Minister on the moves that the Government have made. This is yet a further example among the legion of examples that exist of the Government listening. I am fed up hearing about how the Government do not listen. The Minister has worked extremely hard on this issue. We agree that it is a difficult area on which to tread. He has acted with great distinction.
Concern has been expressed about his proposals for dealing with the problem of no editorialising. I hope that he will ensure that hon. Members have a proper opportunity to examine his detailed proposals so that we may satisfy ourselves that we shall not end up with, as he called it, the ludicrous situation of having a channel run by the Church of England but being unable to broadcast its own services for the reason that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, quoting from the IBA briefing which says it all:
Clause 6(4) would be infringed only if the service was used to promote the particular religious views and opinions of the person providing the service.
What on earth is a sermon for if it is not to promote the views of the Christian faith? With that caveat, I warmly welcome the Minister's proposal and hope that he will pilot it through with the success that he has achieved so far.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said that he had the epilogue, but I have an even more welcome epilogue to his epilogue, which is to say that, in the light of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 225, in page 2, line 2, leave out `six' and insert `eight'.—[Mr. Mellor]

Schedule 1

THE INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 226, in page 134, line 16, at end insert—
'(aa) a member or employee of the Corporation;'.

No. 227, in page 136, leave out lines 1 to 14.—[Mr.Mellor.]

Clause 2

REGULATION BY COMMISSION OF PROVISION OF TELEVISION SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 612, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection 2(a)(ii) shall not be construed as affecting the discharge by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Secretary of State or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of any of his or their functions in connection with competition.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 3

LICENCES UNDER PART I

Amendment made: No. 229, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6), the Commission shall not give their consent for the purposes of that subsection unless they are satisfied that any such other person would be in a position to comply with all of the conditions included in the licence throughout the remainder of the period for which it is to be in force.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 4

GENERAL LICENCE CONDITIONS

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 4. line 16, leave out `fee or'.

No. 120, in page 4, line 17, after 'be', insert—
'in accordance with such tariff as may from time to time be fixed by the Commission; and the amount of any fee which is to be so paid by the holder of a licence of a particular class or description shall be'.

No. 121, in page 4, line 18, leave out 'licence holder' and insert—
'holder of such a licence'.

No. 122, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(3A) The tariff fixed under subsection (3) may specify different fees in relation to different cases or circumstances; and the Commission shall publish that tariff, and every revision of it, in such manner as they consider appropriate.'. —[Mr. Mellor.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr.Durant.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990, No. 758), dated 28th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]

Question agreed to.

Baltic Gold

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Sir Jim Spicer: Today might be considered an appropriate day on which briefly to discuss the disposal of gold that was owned and stored in London for safe keeping by the three Baltic states in the early 1920s. It is appropriate, first, because it is the day on which we have seen the arrival in London of the Prime Minister of Lithuania. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other hon. Members will give her a warm welcome. Secondly, today follows upon a weekend which has seen all the Baltic states announce their independence from the Soviet Union. Finally, it is the anniversary of VE day in 1945 which brought freedom and happiness to many but brutal subjugation for the people of the Baltic states under the Soviet yoke.
I shall briefly outline the background to the Baltic states and what happened to them during their brief period of independence between 1919 and 1939. In 1919 the Baltic states were beset on all sides by foes—the White Russians, the Red Russians, the Poles and briefly the Germans. However, they fought through and bravely declared their independence. But they were still under threat, so in the early 1920s they decided to transfer their gold reserves to the United States, London and Paris for safe keeping. I emphasise that the reserves were transferred for safe keeping. Not merely gold bullion was transferred. The people of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia also gave to their new Government their rings and heirlooms as a mark of their determination to help their country through the difficult period that they knew must lie ahead.
I have heard various figures put on the value of the gold deposited here. It was about £500,000 plus at that time. Between 1919 and 1939 those three small but independent states watched with some horror—they were close enough to see what sort of state was operating alongside—what was happening and the evil doings in the Soviet Union, its big neighbour next door.
Then came August 1939, the date of the infamous accord between the Soviet Union and Hitler which gave the three small states to the Soviets under the hidden protocol. The occupation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania took place in 1940. From 1941 to 1944 they suffered German occupation. In 1944, just when the rest of us were looking forward to peace and freedom, the Baltic states saw the return of Stalinist forces to their countries. That was followed by massive deportations, killings and torture plus an inward movement of Russians arid Ukrainians in an attempt to break down the national coherence of the Baltic states.
For all those years until 1989, the Baltic states suffered under the Soviet yoke. As hon. Members will probably remember, last year, on the anniversary of that infamous pact between Molotov and Ribbentrop, 1 million people in the Baltic states joined hands in a silent, peaceful demonstration of their determination to regain their independence. In 1990 the Baltic states, led by Lithuania, declared their independence from the Soviet Union.
Throughout the past 50 years three small countries have suffered annexation and oppression while the world looked on and took no action. In fairness, what could the


world have done? None of us liked to see Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania swallowed up by the Soviet Union in 1945, but in the times in which we lived, there was no other way, and we could not even protest because of the position we faced. The most important point was that, although we gave de facto recognition to the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states in the post-war world, we have always withheld de jure recognition of Russian sovereignty.
Against that general background, I turn to the unbelievable action in 1968 of the then socialist Government of this country, who handed over to the Soviets the value of the Baltic gold that had been deposited in this country for safe keeping. At that time, the value of the Baltic gold had risen to between £4 million and £5 million. That happened when Brezhnev ruled in the Soviet Union, the invasion of Czechoslovakia had just taken place, and when, as we all know, the gulags were still operational and hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens were being detained in the gulag camps.
The Foreign Compensation Bill authorising the transfer received its Second Reading on 7 November 1968. I am proud that all Conservative speakers in the debate, particularly my old friend, the late Lord Chelwood, then Tufton Beamish, strongly attacked the disreputable deal, which handed over to the Soviet Union gold bullion that did not belong to it or to us. It was a betrayal of trust, made worse because the United States and France made no similar deal with the Soviets and, to this day, retain the funds lodged with them by the Baltic states. Her Majesty's Opposition voted against the Bill on Third Reading in 1968, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined her colleagues in the No Lobby, and the present Speaker of the House was a teller for the Noes.
That the British Government, in 1968, acted in a despicable way cannot be in dispute. They had no legal right to pass to a third party—the Soviet Union—funds that should have remained blocked until recognised Governments were reinstated in all three Baltic states. It would be totally unrealistic to ask the present Government immediately to right that wrong by making full restitution. However, I can ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to undertake an examination of all the papers relating to the unlawful transaction in the hope that, thereafter, a Conservative Government will give some commitment to the Baltic states that, as and when they achieve full independence, they will receive direct support and help from the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend has taken a major part in the setting up of the know-how fund, initially for Poland, then Hungary and now eastern Europe. It would be only right and proper for the Government to consider setting up a special know-how fund for the Baltic states that could be given to them to help them in the difficult days that will inevitably follow the transfer of full independence back to them. That is the very least that we, as an honourable Government, can do to help those people who have suffered so much and so grievously during the past 60 years.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Sir J. Spicer) for

giving me the opportunity to respond to the subject of the debate which, as he rightly says, is potentially one that is coming out of the history books and back into reality.
The origin of the gold and its deposit in London was accurately described by my hon. Friend. On the essence of the action taken by the Government in 1967 and 1968 I would only say that it is no part of my job to defend a previous Labour Government, but, just as it must have seemed inconceivable at that time under Brezhnev that there was any hope of freedom for the Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian republics, it must also have seemed more immediately pressing that there were British citizens and others with claims which had not been met. It must have seemed at least pragmatic sense to write off the claims for the original loans, which had been lost, and which had been taken out by the Lithuanians in London, against the gold which was then available and which was doing nobody any good. So a pragmatic view, which it is not my job to defend, was taken for the benefit of those British citizens.
Mr. Whitlock, who was the junior Minister responsible for the legislation, repeated in column 608 of the Official Report for 22 January 1969 what he had said in Committee:
nothing contained in or done under the Bill would preclude any independent Baltic republic at some time in the future from submitting a claim to the British Government of the day in respect of the property in question if it considered that it had such a claim"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,19th November 1968, c. 23.]
Therein lies the heart of the matter.
My hon. Friend correctly said that we had never recognised de jure the incorporation of the states into the Soviet Union. We believe that independence now can be achieved only by a process of negotiation. Doubtless that is the course of action which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will discuss with the elected Prime Minister of Lithuania at their meeting tomorrow. Doubtless she will wish to urge and explore the possibility of a route to successful negotiation.
If such negotiations were successful, if independent statehood was achieved and if recognition could be accorded, there would be nothing to preclude that state, or any of the other Baltic states, bringing action if they believed they had a claim and could prove title in succession to the original Governments. They would then have to accept that if they were in a position to make claims they would also be in a position to accept their obligations. That would be a matter for the courts at the time.
My hon. Friend referred to the know-how funds for eastern European countries. If the happy outcome which I have described were to be achieved, we and, I am sure, other western countries would not be backward in bringing help and know-how to independent Baltic states. Sadly, we are some way from that, although Baltic independence is now a real possibility which would have seemed inconceivable in 1968.
If there is a happy outcome, and if the Baltic states win back their legal right to independence, the matters may come before the courts again. Nothing in the action of the Government in 1968 could prevent that from happening. The outcome would be a matter for the legal jurisdiction at that time.
That is about all that I can say to my hon. Friend. He has recorded our party's opposition to the Bill at that time and reminds us of our country's opposition to the


incorporation of the Baltic states. That opposition has remained clear and unwavering, although the practicalities of how to achieve a solution are more difficult to see clearly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.